From briceabba at hotmail.com Sun Jan 1 03:35:53 2012 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:35:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?bonne_ann=E9e_2012?= Message-ID: Hi ALL, Bonne Et Heureuse Année 2012bon ak bon ane 2012Happy New Year 2012Frohes Neues Jahr 2012Feliz Año Nuevo 2012Feliz Ano Novo 2012Gëzuar Vitin e Ri 2012furaha ya Mwaka Mpya 2012Felice Anno Nuovo 2012... Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiquesmob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jan 1 06:39:21 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:39:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Politics and Social Media in Pakistan - The struggle for new power within an immature democracy! Message-ID: Starting the new year with a view on politics and social media in Pakistan: Politics and Social Media in Pakistan - The struggle for new power within an immature democracy! Source: http://tinyurl.com/84g6hkh or direct link: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/01/politics-and-social-media-in-pakistan.html Excerpt: "With the massive terror attacks and daily target and political killings carnage across the nation, the never ending NRO case hearings, political unrest with fading accountability, death of Osama Bin Laden, the chaotic mishandling of Raymond Davis case, the political Memo Gate scandal, the crisis after NATO and ISAF's murderous attack on the Pakistani military border checkpoints, the protesting crushed citizenry against the unavailability of electricity, natural gas, rising prices of daily commodities with increasing inflation, the highest rates of joblessness in the world, no law or legal protection even at the basic level, with constant human rights violations midst constant media threats of martial law over an immature democracy, the country remains struggling to withhold its weight and avoid a total collapsing failure. Cooking pot for an Epic political drama of the century! Despite all this chaos and pitfalls of democracy in Pakistan, the political stage is getting ready for the best election drama of the new millennium, a moment in history that everyone across the world will be interested in following. What will be the future of Pakistan and its governance? Hardcore dirty politics is not the focus of this discussion but more on how the political parties and key political actors have taken to the Internet, World Wide Web and Social Media to heat up the political battle ground for upcoming elections. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sun Jan 1 10:45:44 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:45:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] new year has arrived here In-Reply-To: References: <14040831-1325376305-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-816453945-@b17.c4.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear list, May the strength of mother Nature provide a more solidified voice for a free and open Internet. Welcome on board 2012 a year of excellence in IGC. A sui generis year. Accept my unreserved high esteemed regards; great friends and fellows on the list. Sea On 1 Jan 2012 01:05, "Vanda Scartezini" wrote: Best to you and whole family in 2012! Lots of success! Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: S... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Mon Jan 2 01:23:02 2012 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:23:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] Countdown to New Year [2012] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wishing everyone happy new year 2012 K On 31 December 2011 14:38, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We are now counting down the hours in Fiji to New Year! I would like to > take this time to wish everyone on the list a most splendid, fun filled, > productive, high energy new year! I wish you all good health, strength, > courage, joy and friendship. > > HAPPY NEW YEAR! > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Mon Jan 2 04:57:41 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 09:57:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Politics and Social Media in Pakistan - The struggle for new power within an immature democracy! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Rightly pointed out by Fouad, social media has started to play its role in the politics of the country. Political parties have geared up to run massive campaigns over social media. In fact, the youth in particular has joined in broadcasting the change vibe through their status updates with loads of images and videos related with political stage. Social media over Internet is going to be a strong source for changing / setting the political and governance table in the country. Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq > Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 16:39:21 +0500 > From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Politics and Social Media in Pakistan - The struggle for new power within an immature democracy! > > Starting the new year with a view on politics and social media in Pakistan: > > Politics and Social Media in Pakistan - The struggle for new power > within an immature democracy! > Source: http://tinyurl.com/84g6hkh > or direct link: > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/01/politics-and-social-media-in-pakistan.html > > Excerpt: > "With the massive terror attacks and daily target and political > killings carnage across the nation, the never ending NRO case > hearings, political unrest with fading accountability, death of Osama > Bin Laden, the chaotic mishandling of Raymond Davis case, the > political Memo Gate scandal, the crisis after NATO and ISAF's > murderous attack on the Pakistani military border checkpoints, the > protesting crushed citizenry against the unavailability of > electricity, natural gas, rising prices of daily commodities with > increasing inflation, the highest rates of joblessness in the world, > no law or legal protection even at the basic level, with constant > human rights violations midst constant media threats of martial law > over an immature democracy, the country remains struggling to withhold > its weight and avoid a total collapsing failure. > > Cooking pot for an Epic political drama of the century! > Despite all this chaos and pitfalls of democracy in Pakistan, the > political stage is getting ready for the best election drama of the > new millennium, a moment in history that everyone across the world > will be interested in following. What will be the future of Pakistan > and its governance? Hardcore dirty politics is not the focus of this > discussion but more on how the political parties and key political > actors have taken to the Internet, World Wide Web and Social Media to > heat up the political battle ground for upcoming elections. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 2 08:07:34 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:07:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:29:47 +0530) References: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > Enclosed is the 2011 UN GA resolution on ICTs for development. Its most > hotly contested part was of course about 'enhanced cooperation', a > term/issue that so many hope should somehow simply disappear and die. > The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows; > > .... invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology > for Development to convene, in conjunction with the fifteenth > session of the Commission, a one-day open, inclusive and interactive > meeting, involving all Member States and other stakeholders, > particularly those from developing countries, including the private > sector, civil society and international organizations, with a view > to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in accordance with > paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda..... Parminder, many thanks for posting this! I'd suggest that regardless of whatever negative thoughts we may have had on bad developments that can potentially happen under a heading of "enhanced cooperation", let's make sure to have a strong civil society participation in that consultation meeting. It seems that the UN GA's understanding of "enhanced cooperation" is still primarily a heavy handed viewpoint that governments should have power over all Internet related matters over which they want to have power, excepting only "the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues", as written among the introductory recallings: /Reiterating/ the significance and urgency of the process towards enhanced cooperation in full consistency with the mandate provided in the Tunis Agenda and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable Governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not in respect of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues, While I view this as unduly heavy-handed, the underlying desire is IMO legitimate to some extent. I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, individual government officials and third-parties that could gain authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" infrastructures. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 14:55:49 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 15:55:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus Message-ID: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/02/it-is-now-illegal-to-access-any-foreign-website-in-the-republic-of-belarus/ Rgds, Tracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caffsouza at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 15:29:09 2012 From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 18:29:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Glyn Moody tweeted that: "someone inside #belarus says the story about the foreign web access being blocked is a "lie"...trying to find out more..." Any information about that would very helpful. Best, Carlos 2012/1/2 Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google : > http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/02/it-is-now-illegal-to-access-any-foreign-website-in-the-republic-of-belarus/ > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 (CTS/FGV) Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas tel. +55 21 3799-6065 caf at fgv.br ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 16:02:56 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 17:02:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus Message-ID: The story, while quite sensationalist in its headline, does seem to provoke some interest and indicates that Belarus is attempting to encourage the local Web hosting and Domain Name services industry by essentially negatively reinforcing the use of overseas hosting and Domain Name services. Perhaps they may be going about this "local content" thrust slightly overzealously? On Jan 2, 2012 4:29 PM, "Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" < caffsouza at gmail.com> wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jan 2 20:04:32 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:04:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD206F173@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Cyber-nationalism lives. The original information, which is much more accurate, came from the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402929_text From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:56 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/02/it-is-now-illegal-to-access-any-foreign-website-in-the-republic-of-belarus/ Rgds, Tracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jan 2 20:06:04 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 01:06:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> References: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD206F197@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> …and a happy New Year to you, Parminder! From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation Enclosed is the 2011 UN GA resolution on ICTs for development. Its most hotly contested part was of course about 'enhanced cooperation', a term/issue that so many hope should somehow simply disappear and die. The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows; .... invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to convene, in conjunction with the fifteenth session of the Commission, a one-day open, inclusive and interactive meeting, involving all Member States and other stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, including the private sector, civil society and international organizations, with a view to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in accordance with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda..... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 4 10:27:09 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:27:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, I agree with your your suggestions and I think that nuanced proposals are already being ventilated. What I have noticed in previous meetings is that States tend to quote some parts from the Tunis Agenda that maximize their power of negotiation. Some developing countries make sure that "to allow governments on an equal footing" is included, while some other countries make sure that "involve all stakeholders" is included. But this does not mean that the former group is against multistakeholderism and neither that the second group is against more governmental participation. These paragraphs are language that does not capture the advancements on negotiations anymore. And, being repeated over and over, they are making communication more difficult. Civil society could certainly act as a broker in this conversation, as I believe it did before in crucial moments, such as in the WGIG. Marília On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > > Enclosed is the 2011 UN GA resolution on ICTs for development. Its most > > hotly contested part was of course about 'enhanced cooperation', a > > term/issue that so many hope should somehow simply disappear and die. > > The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows; > > > > .... invites the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology > > for Development to convene, in conjunction with the fifteenth > > session of the Commission, a one-day open, inclusive and interactive > > meeting, involving all Member States and other stakeholders, > > particularly those from developing countries, including the private > > sector, civil society and international organizations, with a view > > to identifying a shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on > > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, in accordance with > > paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Tunis Agenda..... > > Parminder, many thanks for posting this! > > I'd suggest that regardless of whatever negative thoughts we may have > had on bad developments that can potentially happen under a heading > of "enhanced cooperation", let's make sure to have a strong civil > society participation in that consultation meeting. > > It seems that the UN GA's understanding of "enhanced cooperation" is > still primarily a heavy handed viewpoint that governments should have > power over all Internet related matters over which they want to have > power, excepting only "the day-to-day technical and operational > matters that do not impact upon those issues", as written among the > introductory recallings: > > /Reiterating/ the significance and urgency of the process towards > enhanced cooperation in full consistency with the mandate provided > in the Tunis Agenda and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable > Governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and > responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet but not in respect of the day-to-day > technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those > issues, > > While I view this as unduly heavy-handed, the underlying desire is > IMO legitimate to some extent. > > I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations > in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how > the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the > risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, > individual government officials and third-parties that could gain > authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" > infrastructures. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 07:03:30 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: January 4, 2012 Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF Reston, Va. FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jan 5 07:07:27 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:07:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and diversified space which represents this network of networks in its multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams and delve into the communication rights debate? fraternal regards --c.a. ---------------- Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef ---------------- www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br On 01/05/2012 10:03 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for > those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the > world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they > did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize > and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue > is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on > Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the > uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United > Nations’ special > rapporteur > went > so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool > for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and > parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet > access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology > is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for > something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the > things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like > freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any > particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end > up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a > horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case > was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were > granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that > we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of > speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily > bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the > United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access > a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an > end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right? > The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always > just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the > argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that > it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human > rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as > human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a > telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal > service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now > broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of > the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of > Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made > by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: > the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and > civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and > egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a > global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise > their human and civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower > users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That > means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and > worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work > toward this end. > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting > bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that > create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state > of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of > our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which > to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for > the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending > that access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and > chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 5 07:38:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:38:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4F05927F.3040302 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and >diversified space which represents this network of networks in its >multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just >technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going >on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as >well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. What Vint is saying is that while there's strong support for a right to communicate, that doesn't mean there's a right to have every means of communication (that's where he's coming from with analogy about horses). There's also a right to free movement, but this doesn't prevent most administrations making the holding of a driving licence a privilege rather than a right, which can be taken away for comparatively minor infringements. >The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is >trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate >executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams >and delve into the communication rights debate? You could try asking him. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 08:26:54 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:26:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I think the title might actually be misleading. It all depends on what conceptions of 'human rights' and 'civil rights' are adopted. Cerf clearly opts for the concept of human rights as rights "intrinsic to us as human beings". While that has been historically a popular notion, it's certainly not void of flaws and there are points to be made in favor of another notion, that human rights are "conferred upon us by law" (not declared by law, rather created by it). Indeed, a working distinction is that of human rights as those conferred by international law and fundamental/constitutional rights as those conferred by national constitutions. So Cerf's notion of civil rights seems to actually be the same as that of human rights, for people who believe that these are rights created by law, in whatever political level. And he concedes Internet access might be considered a civil right. Also, he puts forward the notion that human rights are timeless. If something is "among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives" today, but maybe wasn't tomorrow (or yesterday), then it can't be a human right. Cerf states that "[i]t is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things." I firmly disagree with this view, as I believe Norberto Bobbio and others have offered a better explanation of what constitute human rights: historical achievements of society that begin to exist when they can and must. So there's no difficulty in acknowledging that something might be a human right today but not in 100 years - and vice versa. Lastly, on the "means to an end" issue. It can reasonably be argued that all human rights are means to enabling human dignity or the pursuit of happiness. That is to say, they aren't ends in themselves and therefore there's isn't a problem in recognizing that (a right to) Internet access isn't an end in itself. I fully support Carlos' remark on a vital point: saying Internet is merely a technology depends on one's concept of what the Internet is. I don't support the view that it is merely a technology. Best, Ivar On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 07:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F05927F.3040302 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, > Carlos A. Afonso writes > > Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and >> diversified space which represents this network of networks in its >> multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just >> technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going >> on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as >> well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. >> > > What Vint is saying is that while there's strong support for a right to > communicate, that doesn't mean there's a right to have every means of > communication (that's where he's coming from with analogy about horses). > > There's also a right to free movement, but this doesn't prevent most > administrations making the holding of a driving licence a privilege rather > than a right, which can be taken away for comparatively minor infringements. > > > The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is >> trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate >> executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams >> and delve into the communication rights debate? >> > > You could try asking him. > -- > Roland Perry > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Thu Jan 5 08:33:14 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:33:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear all I'd like to raise three issues: First, the Special Rapporteur expressly referred to the Internet as having become a "tool" for realizing a range of human rights. I don't see the point Vint Cerf's is trying to make, when he writes that "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself". This is what I understand "tool" to mean: an "enabler". To me, he seems to be on the same page as the Special Rapporteur in this regard. Second, the human rights dimension of access to the Internet and to content is more complex a question than might appear at first glance. In his oral statement, Mr. La Rue highlighted the two dimensions of access: access to Internet and access to online content. Both pose specific, but interrelated human rights challenges. Using the Internet as a facilitator for other human rights presupposes access to the Internet in the first place (connectivity) and then unfiltered access to content. (I've blogged about these two kinds of access here: http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2011/11/two-kinds-of-access.html) Third, it doesn't serve the human rights discourse to differentiate between "civil rights" and "human rights". Human rights encompass, inter alia, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights. The 1993 Vienna Declaration reminds us in para. 5 that all human rights are "universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated". Hanging one's argument on one arbitrary definition - civil rights as constitutional endowments and human rights as dignity-based concepts - means ignoring much of the intellectual contribution of half a century of human rights theory. It is true that declaring a right to Internet access might not be the best approach to ensuring that more people have access to the Internet, and unfiltered access to Internet content. But I do not see whether declaring, as Vint Cerf did, in a NY Time editorial, that there is no such thing as a right to Internet is a more valuable contribution to the debate and to the goal of ensuring (both dimensionsn of) Internet access for all. Best Matthias -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Carlos A. Afonso Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Jänner 2012 13:07 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Betreff: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and diversified space which represents this network of networks in its multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams and delve into the communication rights debate? fraternal regards --c.a. ---------------- Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef ---------------- www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br On 01/05/2012 10:03 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-hum > an-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here > for those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around > the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices > that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because > thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have > happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to > communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The > issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped > down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In > June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a > report by the United Nations' special > rapporteur ations-report-internet-access-is-a-human-right.html> > went > so far as to declare that the Internet had "become an indispensable > tool for realizing a range of human rights." Over the past few years, > courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have > pronounced Internet access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: > technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a > high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it > must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, > meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. > It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted > category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For > example, at one time if you didn't have a horse it was hard to make a > living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a > living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I'm not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like > freedom of speech and freedom of access to information - and those are > not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular > time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed > as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the > Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right? > The same reasoning above can be applied here - Internet access is > always just a tool for obtaining something else more important - > though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger > one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are > different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, > not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a "right" > to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of > "universal service" - the idea that telephone service (and > electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the > most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are > edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because > ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: > the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human > and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible > and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining > information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow > people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to > empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users > online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms > like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. > Technologists should work toward this end. > > It is engineers - and our professional associations and > standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and > Electronics Engineers - that create and maintain these new > capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology > and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by > which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an > appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection - > without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at > the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice > president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 08:58:48 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:58:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] transferring registrars for igcaucus web site In-Reply-To: References: <208B5AAC-2A8F-4D56-9562-C856916AE6C9@acm.org> Message-ID: <005e01cccbb2$286b9c60$7942d520$@yahoo.com> Dear Avri, how are you? With reference to following activity, I am facing problem in accessing "http://igcaucus.org" website with and without www prefix. I have tried to access through different proxy servers by obtained the same problem. Google is proposing alternative cached copy of www.igcaucus.org. Would you please spare some time to investigate please? Is it GoDaddy problem or some DNS servers? Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 01:31 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] transferring registrars for igcaucus web site > > Hi, > > Thank you all. > > The heavy lifting is being done by Jeremy who is actually setting up the > server. > It is just he is doing it without disrupting any IGC services so is much less > visible. > > With best wishes for 2012 to all, and with hope for a successful year for civil > society in Internet governance. > > avri > > > On 28 Dec 2011, at 15:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear Avri, > > > > Thank you for the "transfer". > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The IGC website at is reachable again as the > transfer is complete and the the new record has propagated through the > network. > > > > avri > > > > On 26 Dec 2011, at 01:33, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The IGC website may be unreachable for a few hours. I am transferring > igcaucus.org between registrars - this was the last name I had at GoDaddy as > I have been transferring all the domain names i hold from there for about a > year now. Figured now was as good a time as any time to make an end of it. > Hope this short outage on the caucus web site during the holiday does not > inconvenience anyone. > > > > > > It should not be unreachable for long. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > __ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 5 08:56:07 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:56:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 08:26:54 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >I think the title might actually be misleading. It all depends on what >conceptions of 'human rights' and 'civil rights' are adopted. >Cerf clearly opts for the concept of human rights as rights "intrinsic >to us as human beings". While that has been historically a popular >notion, it's certainly not void of flaws and there are points to be >made in favor of another notion, that human rights are "conferred upon >us by law" (not declared by law, rather created by it). Indeed, a >working distinction is that of human rights as those conferred by >international law and fundamental/constitutional rights as those >conferred by national constitutions. >So Cerf's notion of civil rights seems to actually be the same as that >of human rights, for people who believe that these are rights created >by law, in whatever political level. And he concedes Internet access >might be considered a civil right. > >Also, he puts forward the notion that human rights are timeless. If >something is "among the things we as humans need in order to lead >healthy, meaningful lives" today, but maybe wasn't tomorrow (or >yesterday), then it can't be a human right. Cerf states that "[i]t is a >mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, >since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things." I firmly >disagree with this view, as I believe Norberto Bobbio and others have >offered a better explanation of what constitute human rights: >historical achievements of society that begin to exist when they can >and must. So there's no difficulty in acknowledging that something >might be a human right today but not in 100 years - and vice versa. The idea that Civil Rights are a subset of Human Rights with a short term historical context applied to them is probably the way to square the circle. Can we doubt that "a right to life" is fundamental? But the Civil Right of murderers not to be the subject of a Death Penalty is still debated. >Lastly, on the "means to an end" issue. It can reasonably be argued >that all human rights are means to enabling human dignity or the >pursuit of happiness. That is to say, they aren't ends in themselves >and therefore there's isn't a problem in recognizing that (a right to) >Internet access isn't an end in itself. > >I fully support Carlos' remark on a vital point: saying Internet is >merely a technology depends on one's concept of what the Internet is. I >don't support the view that it is merely a technology. As Vint is talking about "Access" (using the IGF terminology) this is indeed almost entirely a technology thing. If you go further than that you'll soon get into difficult territory like a potential human right to have Facebook or eBay account, or to send Spam to anyone you want to. >On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 07:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F05927F.3040302 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > > >> Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and >> diversified space which represents this network of networks in >> its >> multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being >> "just >> technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance >> going >> on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not >> forgetting as >> well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. > > > What Vint is saying is that while there's strong support for a right > to communicate, that doesn't mean there's a right to have every > means of communication (that's where he's coming from with analogy > about horses). > > There's also a right to free movement, but this doesn't prevent most > administrations making the holding of a driving licence a privilege > rather than a right, which can be taken away for comparatively minor > infringements. > > > >> The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- >> this is >> trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate >> executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" >> dreams >> and delve into the communication rights debate? > > > You could try asking him. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 5 09:31:37 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:31:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at) References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Matthias Kettemann wrote: > I don't see the point Vint Cerf's is trying to make, when he writes > that "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself". I think he has a valid and important point in that human rights assertions should be phrased so that they are independent of any particular technology, so that they continue to be valid as technologies continue to evolve. My proposal would be to assert the human right that today is roughly equivalent to saying "Internet access is a human right" somewhat like the following: It is a human right that a person's access to means of communication must not be hindered in any way beyond the charging of reasonable prices for communication related goods and services. At the present time this implies that denying someone Internet access is a human rights violation. Which it is, today. But when the principle is phrased like I propose above, it in addition meets the criteria that Vint Cerf asserts that human rights should satisfy. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caffsouza at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 09:34:24 2012 From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:34:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD206F173@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD206F173@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: More info on the situation in Belarus: http://www.itlaw.by/eng/belarus/24.php (...) "First of all it should be mentioned that there are no legal obstacles for any Belarusian resident to operate a website under international top-level domain names (.com, .net, etc.) or national domain names of other states (.ru, .ch, it. etc.), as well as non-residents are free to operate the website registered in the national domain zone “.by”. The main reason for confusion is Clause 2 of the Edict, obliging websites to host its content on servers in Belarus, as the wording of the Clause 2 is very ambiguous: “Activity on selling goods, performing works or rendering services on the territory of the Republic of Belarus with use of information networks, systems and resources connected to Internet shall be conducted by legal entities, their branches and representative offices, established in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Belarus, located in the Republic of Belarus … with use of information networks, systems and resources located (hosted) in the Republic of Belarus and duly registered”. In other words it enacts the requirement for legal entities and entrepreneurs to host websites, which conduct activity on selling of goods, rendering of services, performing works, within the territory of the Republic of Belarus. In the situation of absence of any official clarification or court precedent, different variants of interpretation of Clause 2 have appeared. However, basing on the comments of the regulator and opinion of Belarusian leading law firms, the common interpretation has been worked out: the hosting requirement is applicable only to Belarusian legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. This interpretation is indirectly proved by the wording of the Article 22.16 of the recently enacted Law Amending the Administrative Offences Code. It should be noted that sanctions for violation of the Edict will apply only to legal entities and entrepreneurs, but not to Internet users trying to access websites violating the Edict." 2012/1/2 Milton L Mueller : > Cyber-nationalism lives. > > > > The original information, which is much more accurate, came from the Library > of Congress > > http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402929_text > > > > > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:56 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the > Republic of Belarus > > > > http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/02/it-is-now-illegal-to-access-any-foreign-website-in-the-republic-of-belarus/ > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 (CTS/FGV) Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas tel. +55 21 3799-6065 caf at fgv.br ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 09:38:59 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:38:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, why should a choice be made for a phrasing of the right that seems to exclude a positive dimension (e.g. the state has an obligation to an active performance, not only to omit from a restriction)? Best, Ivar On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 09:31, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Matthias Kettemann wrote: > > I don't see the point Vint Cerf's is trying to make, when he writes > > that "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself". > > I think he has a valid and important point in that human rights > assertions should be phrased so that they are independent of any > particular technology, so that they continue to be valid as > technologies continue to evolve. > > My proposal would be to assert the human right that today is > roughly equivalent to saying "Internet access is a human right" > somewhat like the following: > > It is a human right that a person's access to means of communication > must not be hindered in any way beyond the charging of reasonable > prices for communication related goods and services. > > At the present time this implies that denying someone Internet > access is a human rights violation. Which it is, today. But when > the principle is phrased like I propose above, it in addition meets > the criteria that Vint Cerf asserts that human rights should satisfy. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 5 09:46:14 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:46:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] It is now illegal to access any foreign website in the Republic of Belarus In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD206F173@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 12:34:24 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza writes >The main reason for confusion is Clause 2 of the Edict, obliging >websites to host its content on servers in Belarus, as the wording of >the Clause 2 is very ambiguous: > >“Activity on selling goods, performing works or rendering services on >the territory of the Republic of Belarus with use of information >networks, systems and resources connected to Internet shall be >conducted by legal entities, their branches and representative >offices, established in accordance with the legislation of the >Republic of Belarus, located in the Republic of Belarus … with use of >information networks, systems and resources located (hosted) in the >Republic of Belarus and duly registered”. > >In other words it enacts the requirement for legal entities and >entrepreneurs to host websites, which conduct activity on selling of >goods, rendering of services, performing works, within the territory >of the Republic of Belarus. > >In the situation of absence of any official clarification or court >precedent, different variants of interpretation of Clause 2 have >appeared. However, basing on the comments of the regulator and opinion >of Belarusian leading law firms, the common interpretation has been >worked out: the hosting requirement is applicable only to Belarusian >legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. This interpretation is >indirectly proved by the wording of the Article 22.16 of the recently >enacted Law Amending the Administrative Offences Code. > >It should be noted that sanctions for violation of the Edict will >apply only to legal entities and entrepreneurs, but not to Internet >users trying to access websites violating the Edict." It's nevertheless a potential inconvenience for businesses selling via internationally-hosted sites such as Amazon and eBay, as well those whose are buying services from a cloud (with the traditional uncertainty about there that is). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 09:52:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:52:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?US_-_NTIA_Supports_New_Domains_=96_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Phased_In=2C_With_Protection?= Message-ID: <4F05B917.5040305@gmail.com> NTIA Supports New Domains – Phased In, With Protection Published on 5 January 2012 @ 3:19 pm EmailShare Print This Post Print This Post Intellectual Property Watch By Monika Ermert for /Intellectual Property Watch/ The US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has announced its support for additional policies for new generic top-level domains on the internet, with conditions. The Commerce Department agency will stick to the 12 January start of the application period for new domains, but it has requested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) take additional precautions when opening up the process. In a 3 January letter [pdf], the NTIA requested ICANN “to minimize the perceived need for defensive registration” by industry and to undertake better education about the programme before 12 January. It also demanded that ICANN promptly implement its commitments for law enforcement and consumer protection. Trademark owners represented in several associations like the Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight (CRIDO) and the Coalition against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) have hammered home their concerns in several congressional hearings and a meeting with the NTIA over the past four weeks. The latest CADNA letter is here . NTIA, which has been supportive of the six-year ICANN process to define the applicant guidebook, now announced that it will consult with stakeholders and governments on additional protections for second-level domain names once the first list of applicants becomes available. ICANN should at that point also consider how to “phase in” the process, NTIA said, in answer to some trademark owners’ and politicians’ calls to slow down the new domain process. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 5 09:51:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:51:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF at quill.bollow.ch>, at 15:31:37 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >My proposal would be to assert the human right that today is >roughly equivalent to saying "Internet access is a human right" >somewhat like the following: > > It is a human right that a person's access to means of communication > must not be hindered in any way beyond the charging of reasonable > prices for communication related goods and services. I think you also need something about "unless prohibited by law" (which can also be a proxy of 'anti-social and illegal behaviour"). After all, even this very open-minded mailing list has thrown people off in the past for spamming or trolling. And does the right extend to convicts in jail (who will undoubtedly use it to organise further crime and jailbreaks?) Now, I understand that some people are worried that cutting off access even to those who badly misbehave is a step too far. But that's why it needs to be a "Civil right" not a "Human right". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Thu Jan 5 10:11:22 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:11:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Roland and all, the right to access does not imply the right to participate in any one mailing list, just as the right to association does not imply the right to be a member of any one specific organization, or the right to freedom of expression the right to have one's op-eds published in the NY Times. Being in jail is not per se a human rights violation. Just consider Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; [...]" Just as the right to liberty of person - a classical "civil" right in traditional parlance - can be limited, the right to access (and the right to liberty of person, and the right to privacy, and to family life, to association, to freedom of assembly ...) can also be limited by, for instance, being in jail. However, this has nothing to do with the arbitrary distinction of civil vs. human rights. Civil rights are human rights. And human rights can be limited. Indeed, sometimes states are obliged to limit certain human rights to meet other human rights obligations - when they limit hate speech amounting to direct and public incitement for genocide in implementation of their duty under Articles III and V of the UN Genocide Convention. Kind regards Matthias -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Roland Perry Gesendet: Donnerstag, 05. Jänner 2012 15:51 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR [...] After all, even this very open-minded mailing list has thrown people off in the past for spamming or trolling. And does the right extend to convicts in jail (who will undoubtedly use it to organise further crime and jailbreaks?) Now, I understand that some people are worried that cutting off access even to those who badly misbehave is a step too far. But that's why it needs to be a "Civil right" not a "Human right". -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jan 5 10:11:21 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 16:11:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: (ivarhartmann@gmail.com) References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120105151121.74D5F15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > why should a choice be made for a phrasing of the right that seems to > exclude a positive dimension (e.g. the state has an obligation to an active > performance, not only to omit from a restriction)? I agree that states have an obligation to an active performance in the area of ensuring affordable Internet access for all. Here's an attempt to phrase this in a reasonably realistic and technology-neutral way: All persons have the human right that their country of residence shall ensure that they can afford access to means of communication suitable for long-distance voice conversation (e.g. telephone) and for the exchange of digital information (e.g. the Internet). However, I think that it is wise separate this from the obligation to refrain from hindering Internet access. These are in my opinion part of two different types of human rights. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 10:14:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:14:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> On 2012/01/05 04:51 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > I think you also need something about "unless prohibited by law" > (which can also be a proxy of 'anti-social and illegal behaviour"). There are typically exceptions to rights, civil or human - no right is absolute. And then these would turn on what is illegal, unreasonable etc... > that's why it needs to be a "Civil right" not a "Human right". what is the difference you are pushing for here? And what are its implications... perhaps I am missing something here... > After all, even this very open-minded mailing list has thrown people > off in the past for spamming or trolling. And does the right extend to > convicts in jail (who will undoubtedly use it to organise further > crime and jailbreaks?) Pending your response above, the point is what is the nature of the "right" and its qualitative relationship to access. Even people who misbehave have a right to access to medicines, which is deemed as fundamental. In fact, if access to communication/info (as Norbert puts it) is regarded as so fundamental, then there would be a positive duty on the state to ensure that there is access even for the misbehaving. But this is theory. Perhaps the analogy is not appropriate, it does give indications: We live in a world where the rentier class is mighty and pushes so that even fundamental rights like health are held hostage so that poor people with treatable/preventable conditions cannot get access to cheap medicines (the same bunch that arranges the US 301 lobbied for no public health option in the US - so it is not just North South). What chance the right Norbert puts forward in this political economy? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 11:53:21 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 11:53:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> Message-ID: "However, I think that it is wise separate this from the obligation to refrain from hindering Internet access. These are in my opinion part of two different types of human rights." I believe we're on the same page, except when it comes to this need for a separation between two different types of Internet access right. I agree that there are two different types of human rights: negative/freedom/civil-political rights and positive/social/economic rights. Even if one accepts this distinction, however, it's inescapable that all rights require some negative performances and some positive performances by the state. Take the right to life, which most people would say is a negative/freedom right. In order to adequately protect it, states must maintain, among other things, a police force (to prevent, repress and investigate crime). And this is by no means a negative performance. The right to life as been interpreted in some jurisdictions (e.g. India) to sometimes require the state to provide health care services. Again, not a negative performance. So even though a right may require from the state predominantly a negative performance (such as the right to life) or predominantly a positive performance (i.e. right to housing), all of them require the other type of performance as well - albeit to a lesser degree or not as often. So the issue for me is: a right to Internet access has which dimension as more predominant? I used to believe it was the negative one, but in the last 2 years I've changed my mind. The concerns shared by Riaz are most relevant and they illustrate the difference between a legal right (one which can be abolished freely by the legislator - to my knowledge, that is the case of the right to Internet access in Finland and Estonia) and a constitutional right (not subject to abolition or nearly complete restriction by the will of temporary political majorities). Best, Ivar On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:14, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > On 2012/01/05 04:51 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> I think you also need something about "unless prohibited by law" (which >> can also be a proxy of 'anti-social and illegal behaviour"). >> > > There are typically exceptions to rights, civil or human - no right is > absolute. And then these would turn on what is illegal, unreasonable etc... > > > that's why it needs to be a "Civil right" not a "Human right". >> > > what is the difference you are pushing for here? And what are its > implications... perhaps I am missing something here... > > > After all, even this very open-minded mailing list has thrown people off >> in the past for spamming or trolling. And does the right extend to convicts >> in jail (who will undoubtedly use it to organise further crime and >> jailbreaks?) >> > > Pending your response above, the point is what is the nature of the > "right" and its qualitative relationship to access. Even people who > misbehave have a right to access to medicines, which is deemed as > fundamental. In fact, if access to communication/info (as Norbert puts it) > is regarded as so fundamental, then there would be a positive duty on the > state to ensure that there is access even for the misbehaving. > > But this is theory. Perhaps the analogy is not appropriate, it does give > indications: We live in a world where the rentier class is mighty and > pushes so that even fundamental rights like health are held hostage so that > poor people with treatable/preventable conditions cannot get access to > cheap medicines (the same bunch that arranges the US 301 lobbied for no > public health option in the US - so it is not just North South). What > chance the right Norbert puts forward in this political economy? > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 5 12:08:56 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:08:56 +0700 Subject: [governance] transferring registrars for igcaucus web site In-Reply-To: <005e01cccbb2$286b9c60$7942d520$@yahoo.com> References: <208B5AAC-2A8F-4D56-9562-C856916AE6C9@acm.org> <005e01cccbb2$286b9c60$7942d520$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 05/01/2012, at 8:58 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > With reference to following activity, I am facing problem in accessing > "http://igcaucus.org" website with and without www prefix. > I have tried to access through different proxy servers by obtained the same > problem. Google is proposing alternative cached copy of www.igcaucus.org. > Would you please spare some time to investigate please? Is it GoDaddy > problem or some DNS servers? No, it is that I moved the site to our own virtual server already but the server already probably needs upgrading with more memory. This is easy to do, but it will mean our money will run out sooner so I had been putting it off until I tried to do some more optimisation first. Anyway, I restarted it so the site is back up now. The mailing list is not yet switched over because CPSR have not yet been able to give me full access to the old list. -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 5 12:09:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:09:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7GeXjCKRldBPFAJw@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4F05BE3F.7060308 at gmail.com>, at 17:14:07 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >> that's why it needs to be a "Civil right" not a "Human right". > >what is the difference you are pushing for here? And what are its >implications... perhaps I am missing something here... Matthias has posted a more detailed version of the ideas I was trying to express. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 5 12:55:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Hi, I agree with those who beleive that Vint's Opinion piece is problematic. I think he misses the point on several levels though I think he does make one critical point that hits the mark. - As some have pointed out the Internet is not technology, the Internet may be enabled by technology but it is a whole lot more than that, most especially it is the content one can publish and consume using the technology. The Internet is more like the published word, than it is like a horse. The Internet is not technology, it is not even totally shaped by technology as the techno-policy aspects are greater in many respects than the bit and bytes of the protocol designs and implementations. To say that people have a right to Internet access is a lot like saying people have a right of access to published material. - Another point he misses is contained in: "Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings." While I am glad that he does not go all the way to define where intrinsic rights come from, for all intents and purpose Human Rights and Civil Rights are defined by the same set of basic rights documents: the UDHR , the ICCPR and the ICESCR . To set these things as somehow separate and coming from different origins takes us back to the battle between Natural and Legal rights. The documents referred to above, an UNGA resolution (soft law) and two binding treaties (binding law), sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights, moved us beyond that argument putting both Human and Civil rights on a legal basis. It is a category error to place them in opposition to each other. Unfortunately the most important point he makes is almost swallowed by the problematic background of the paper: That technologists need to focus on the creation of rights-enabling technology as opposed to rights-disabling technology. This is, in my opinion the critical thing to take from this piece, problematic aspects aside. Personally I think a lot of the technology that has gone in enabling the Internet has indeed being rights-enabling. In recent years, however, much has been done by technical companies to create a great amount of rights-disabling technology. And this is the big warning I take from the piece. Technology companies have to stop endangering people's rights in their quest of profits and government approval. I hope those reading this piece among the technology purveyors and technical developers pay attention and stop creating the technology that disables the right-enabling characteristic of the Internet. It is good that someone as revered as he is by many in our corner of the world, should make this sort of statement. avri On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > By VINTON G. CERF > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 13:34:27 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:34:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] transferring registrars for igcaucus web site Message-ID: <1325788467.8555.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Jeremy By the way, how much memory (storage) is required? If you need my help, Please let me know. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 10:08 PM PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote:>On 05/01/2012, at 8:58 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>> With reference to following activity, I am facing problem in accessing>> "http://igcaucus.org" website with and without www prefix.>> I have tried to access through different proxy servers by obtained the same>> problem. Google is proposing alternative cached copy of www.igcaucus.org.>> Would you please spare some time to investigate please? Is it GoDaddy>> problem or some DNS servers?>>>No, it is that I moved the site to our own virtual server already but the server already probably needs upgrading with more memory. This is easy to do, but it will mean our money will run out sooner so I had been putting it off until I tried to do some more optimisation first. Anyway, I restarted it so the site is back up now. The mailing list is not yet switched over because CPSR have not yet been able to give me full access to the old list.>>-- >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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Thu Jan 5 16:42:06 2012 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:42:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> References: ,<7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, At least Vint's op-ed sparked an interesting discussion on various lists. IMO, relevant human rights are formulated in UDHR, particularly in Article 19, and other comparable documents. In 1948, there was no Internet, and "through any media" referred to whatever media there was at the time. But today, internet is certainly the main vehicle/tool/enabler for the implementation of these human rights, and denial of access to the Internet certainly equals denial of human rights. Vint mentions a couple of countries where access to the Internet has been proclaimed a human right. Sometimes Finland is also listed among them. However, the decision to make broadband available to all ( permanent residences and places of business) is technically a universal service obligation, and access is not defined as a human right as such. Roland mentions internet access in jails. It is now tried out in Finland in three minimum security prisons and will be extended to all (14) soon, not as a right but as a means to help people serving their sentences to study, to seek employment and to generally to prepare for life after prison. I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling technologies instead of rights-disabling ones. Yrjö > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:24 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > Hi, > > I agree with those who beleive that Vint's Opinion piece is problematic. I think he misses the point on several levels though I think he does make one critical point that hits the mark. > > - As some have pointed out the Internet is not technology, the Internet may be enabled by technology but it is a whole lot more than that, most especially it is the content one can publish and consume using the technology. The Internet is more like the published word, than it is like a horse. The Internet is not technology, it is not even totally shaped by technology as the techno-policy aspects are greater in many respects than the bit and bytes of the protocol designs and implementations. To say that people have a right to Internet access is a lot like saying people have a right of access to published material. > > - Another point he misses is contained in: "Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings." While I am glad that he does not go all the way to define where intrinsic rights come from, for all intents and purpose Human Rights and Civil Rights are defined by the same set of basic rights documents: the UDHR , the ICCPR and the ICESCR . To set these things as somehow separate and coming from different origins takes us back to the battle between Natural and Legal rights. The documents referred to above, an UNGA resolution (soft law) and two binding treaties (binding law), sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights, moved us beyond that argument putting both Human and Civil rights on a legal basis. It is a category error to place them in opposition to each other. > > Unfortunately the most important point he makes is almost swallowed by the problematic background of the paper: That technologists need to focus on the creation of rights-enabling technology as opposed to rights-disabling technology. This is, in my opinion the critical thing to take from this piece, problematic aspects aside. Personally I think a lot of the technology that has gone in enabling the Internet has indeed being rights-enabling. In recent years, however, much has been done by technical companies to create a great amount of rights-disabling technology. And this is the big warning I take from the piece. Technology companies have to stop endangering people's rights in their quest of profits and government approval. > > I hope those reading this piece among the technology purveyors and technical developers pay attention and stop creating the technology that disables the right-enabling characteristic of the Internet. It is good that someone as revered as he is by many in our corner of the world, should make this sort of statement. > > avri > > > > On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: > > January 4, 2012 > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > > By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > > > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. > > > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > Diplo Foundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 17:20:50 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:20:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Isn't part of the difficulty that we put under the term "the Internet" different things? It is the infrastructure, it is the content that reside on servers and it is the global space (let's call it again Cyberspace) where people interact. In that respect, it is connected to different human rights, including freedom of circulation, which is rarely mentioned. But I agree that Vint's piece has the merit of triggering probably wide-ranging discussions, helping put the topic higher on the agenda. B. On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Hi all, > > At least Vint's op-ed sparked an interesting discussion on various lists. > > IMO, relevant human rights are formulated in UDHR, particularly in > Article 19, and other comparable documents. In 1948, there was no Internet, > and "through any media" referred to whatever media there was at the time. > But today, internet is certainly the main vehicle/tool/enabler for the > implementation of these human rights, and denial of access to the Internet > certainly equals denial of human rights. > > Vint mentions a couple of countries where access to the Internet has been > proclaimed a human right. Sometimes Finland is also listed among them. > However, the decision to make broadband available to all ( permanent > residences and places of business) is technically a universal service > obligation, and access is not defined as a human right as such. > > Roland mentions internet access in jails. It is now tried out in Finland > in three minimum security prisons and will be extended to all (14) soon, > not as a right but as a means to help people serving their sentences to > study, to seek employment and to generally to prepare for life after > prison. > > I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the > end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling technologies > instead of rights-disabling ones. > > Yrjö > > > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:24 -0500 > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is > not a HR > > > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with those who beleive that Vint's Opinion piece is problematic. > I think he misses the point on several levels though I think he does make > one critical point that hits the mark. > > > > - As some have pointed out the Internet is not technology, the Internet > may be enabled by technology but it is a whole lot more than that, most > especially it is the content one can publish and consume using the > technology. The Internet is more like the published word, than it is like a > horse. The Internet is not technology, it is not even totally shaped by > technology as the techno-policy aspects are greater in many respects than > the bit and bytes of the protocol designs and implementations. To say that > people have a right to Internet access is a lot like saying people have a > right of access to published material. > > > > - Another point he misses is contained in: "Civil rights, after all, are > different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not > intrinsic to us as human beings." While I am glad that he does not go all > the way to define where intrinsic rights come from, for all intents and > purpose Human Rights and Civil Rights are defined by the same set of basic > rights documents: the UDHR , the > ICCPR and the ICESCR < > http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm>. To set these things as > somehow separate and coming from different origins takes us back to the > battle between Natural and Legal rights. The documents referred to above, > an UNGA resolution (soft law) and two binding treaties (binding law), > sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights, moved us > beyond that argument putting both Human and Civil rights on a legal basis. > It is a category error to place them in opposition to each other. > > > > Unfortunately the most important point he makes is almost swallowed by > the problematic background of the paper: That technologists need to focus > on the creation of rights-enabling technology as opposed to > rights-disabling technology. This is, in my opinion the critical thing to > take from this piece, problematic aspects aside. Personally I think a lot > of the technology that has gone in enabling the Internet has indeed being > rights-enabling. In recent years, however, much has been done by technical > companies to create a great amount of rights-disabling technology. And this > is the big warning I take from the piece. Technology companies have to stop > endangering people's rights in their quest of profits and government > approval. > > > > I hope those reading this piece among the technology purveyors and > technical developers pay attention and stop creating the technology that > disables the right-enabling characteristic of the Internet. It is good that > someone as revered as he is by many in our corner of the world, should make > this sort of statement. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > > > > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here > for those who may not be able to access it: > > > January 4, 2012 > > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > > > By VINTON G. CERF > > > Reston, Va. > > > > > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around > the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they > did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize > and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > > > > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue > is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on > Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the > uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United > Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had > “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over > the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and > Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > > > > > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: > technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar > for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among > the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, > like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to > place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time > we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you > didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right > in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. > Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I > would put it. > > > > > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom > of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not > necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. > Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as > declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was > valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > > > > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil > right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is > always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the > argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that > it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human > rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as > human beings. > > > > > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” > to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal > service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now > broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of > the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of > Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made > by the government. > > > > > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental > issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support > human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously > accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining > information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow > people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > > > > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to > empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. > That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses > and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work > toward this end. > > > > > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and > standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics > Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to > advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must > be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering > expertise. > > > > > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by > which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation > for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending > that access itself is such a right. > > > > > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and > Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist > for Google. > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > Diplo Foundation > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Program Director, International Diplomatic Academy Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 5 18:12:30 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:12:30 +0500 Subject: [governance] DCMA and Google's Filtering - What about the right to the Internet for rest of the world? Message-ID: Dear all, I have a question as a result of something I have been noting for some time now. Sometimes while I search for certain information via www.google.com.pk, Pakistan's version of Google.com, I get a message as below: "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org" This is Google's DCMA Policy: http://support.google.com/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1386831 The question is, I am on a ccTLD and regional service of Google. - Is Google bound to service my region (broker information, information intermediary, information filtering) without any prior information? - Is it bound to enforce DCMA on Pakistan? - How is this being implemented to a search request from a region by a US based company's regional country specific service. - Isn't this similar to SOPA? - How does Google have the right to filter my results under any copyright law that is not legislated by my country? - How does Google have the right to enforce US based copyright laws without a multilateral treaty or understanding? - How do I get over this confusion now that I am witnessing it? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jan 5 19:22:45 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 05:22:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] Understanding the IT Lobby - An eye opener Message-ID: In the past, the following document was something that helped in better understanding the business side of lobbying. I have attempted to understand in the context of Internet related lobbying which is related. The following document provides a reasonably deep insight into how the industry carries out IT Lobbying and what issues make it do so: http://actonline.org/publications/2008/08/05/understanding-the-it-lobby-an-insiders-guide/ http://actonline.org/publications/files/rcpg61911proof.pdf Similarly, the word Free as in Free Software is also not welcome by many lobbyists in the above area: http://actonline.org/publications/files/090622-act-paying-for-free-vfinalweb.pdf With SOPA, DCMA, ACTA and so forth, it seems that in no manner do lobbyists want to think outside of a US-Centric Internet and IPR Interest system. Profits will never account to freedoms I suppose at any stage. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 5 19:30:56 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 01:30:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: (ivarhartmann@gmail.com) References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120106003056.80FF915C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > I believe we're on the same page, except when it comes to this need for a > separation between two different types of Internet access right. For context, this is about my suggestion to assert the following two aspects as separate human rights: (A) It is a human right that a person's access to means of communication must not be hindered in any way beyond the charging of reasonable prices for communication related goods and services. (B) All persons have the human right that their country of residence shall ensure that they can afford access to means of communication suitable for long-distance voice conversation (e.g. telephone) and for the exchange of digital information (e.g. the Internet). > I agree that there are two different types of human rights: > negative/freedom/civil-political rights and positive/social/economic > rights. > Even if one accepts this distinction, however, it's inescapable that all > rights require some negative performances and some positive performances by > the state. In geographical areas where many people are interested in having internet access and where they are able to pay a monthly fee that is economically reasonable from the perspective of commercial ISPs, it is IMO sufficient for the government to "get out of the way" by respecting the "negative right" that the government must not create obstacles. In other areas, where it's not economically feasible for profit-oriented businesses to provide internet access services at a price level that the people in that area can generally afford, additional policy measures may be necessary. For example, governments could make subsidies available for local Internet access cooperatives. Even when both the "negative performances" and the "positive performances" by the state are both needed, it will be different officials who are responsible for implementing the two, and the processes for ensuring that the state acts as it should will be entirely different with respect to these two aspects. When there are two aspects of a responsibilities of the state, so that from this very practical perspective the two are part of different categories, it will be better to state them separately. Otherwise, if the two aspects are folded into a single assertion of a human right, that might be logically equivalent, but it will not be equivalent in practice, because the risk is great that states will in practice assign responsibility for implementation of that human right to a government agency which is only insitutionally equipped to take care of one of these aspects, and then that government agency will interpret that statement of the human right in accordance with what it is institutionally able to do, and the other aspect is not likely to be effectively put into practice. > So the issue for me is: a right to Internet access has which dimension as > more predominant? > I used to believe it was the negative one, but in the last 2 years I've > changed my mind. I would suggest that both aspects should be explicitly stated and insisted on as human rights. By the way, although both aspects are, in today's socio-technical context, logical consquences of existing international human rights law, the arguments to justify them on that basis will differ. Although there is a bit of overlap, different articles of ICCPR [1] and ICESCR [2] will be quoted in justifying one or the other of these two aspects. That is IMO another good reason to assert the two aspects separately. [1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, see http://idgovmap.org/map_html/treaty/ICCPR [2] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, see http://idgovmap.org/map_html/treaty/ICESCR Finally, it happens that countries lack sufficient financial resources for implementing all of the "positive performances" that are required to deliver on their human rights obligations. Aspect (B) above may be simply impossible to deliver due to lack of financial resources for necessary subsidies. This is a key difference to aspect (A). In fact I believe that it was this difference between different kinds of human rights that has led to ICCPR and ICESCR becoming separate treaties. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Thu Jan 5 20:02:19 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:02:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CE9A25F92926FA-9B8-8DC53@webmail-d135.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- What Vint Cerf has seemingly done in distinguishing between human rights and civil rights is simply to refer with different terminology to the classical distinction between "natural rights" deemed to be inherent in the human condition without needing to be articulated or adopted by any lawmaker and "positive law" which must originate with a lawmaking authority. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Yrjö Länsipuro To: governance Sent: Thu, Jan 5, 2012 5:42 pm Subject: RE: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Hi all, At least Vint's op-ed sparked an interesting discussion on various lists. IMO, relevant human rights are formulated in UDHR, particularly in Article 19, and other comparable documents. In 1948, there was no Internet, and "through any media" referred to whatever media there was at the time. But today, internet is certainly the main vehicle/tool/enabler for the implementation of these human rights, and denial of access to the Internet certainly equals denial of human rights. Vint mentions a couple of countries where access to the Internet has been proclaimed a human right. Sometimes Finland is also listed among them. However, the decision to make broadband available to all ( permanent residences and places of business) is technically a universal service obligation, and access is not defined as a human right as such. Roland mentions internet access in jails. It is now tried out in Finland in three minimum security prisons and will be extended to all (14) soon, not as a right but as a means to help people serving their sentences to study, to seek employment and to generally to prepare for life after prison. I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling technologies instead of rights-disabling ones. Yrjö > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:24 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > Hi, > > I agree with those who beleive that Vint's Opinion piece is problematic. I think he misses the point on several levels though I think he does make one critical point that hits the mark. > > - As some have pointed out the Internet is not technology, the Internet may be enabled by technology but it is a whole lot more than that, most especially it is the content one can publish and consume using the technology. The Internet is more like the published word, than it is like a horse. The Internet is not technology, it is not even totally shaped by technology as the techno-policy aspects are greater in many respects than the bit and bytes of the protocol designs and implementations. To say that people have a right to Internet access is a lot like saying people have a right of access to published material. > > - Another point he misses is contained in: "Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings." While I am glad that he does not go all the way to define where intrinsic rights come from, for all intents and purpose Human Rights and Civil Rights are defined by the same set of basic rights documents: the UDHR ;, the ICCPR ; and the ICESCR ;. To set these things as somehow separate and coming from different origins takes us back to the battle between Natural and Legal rights. The documents referred to above, an UNGA resolution (soft law) and two binding treaties (binding law), sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights, moved us beyond that argument putting both Human and Civil rights on a legal basis. It is a category error to place them in opposition to each other. > > Unfortunately the most important point he makes is almost swallowed by the problematic background of the paper: That technologists need to focus on the creation of rights-enabling technology as opposed to rights-disabling technology. This is, in my opinion the critical thing to take from this piece, problematic aspects aside. Personally I think a lot of the technology that has gone in enabling the Internet has indeed being rights-enabling. In recent years, however, much has been done by technical companies to create a great amount of rights-disabling technology. And this is the big warning I take from the piece. Technology companies have to stop endangering people's rights in their quest of profits and government approval. > > I hope those reading this piece among the technology purveyors and technical developers pay attention and stop creating the technology that disables the right-enabling characteristic of the Internet. It is good that someone as revered as he is by many in our corner of the world, should make this sort of statement. > > avri > > > > On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: > > January 4, 2012 > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > > By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > > > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. > > > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > Diplo Foundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 5 20:35:33 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:35:33 +0700 Subject: [governance] transferring registrars for igcaucus web site In-Reply-To: <1325788467.8555.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1325788467.8555.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <29C6BF36-3418-4AE0-B962-486BC504C48F@ciroap.org> On 06/01/2012, at 1:34 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks Jeremy > By the way, how much memory (storage) is required? > If you need my help, > Please let me know. Evidently more than 128Mb. It's OK, thanks, I'll deal with it. -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Jan 5 23:01:06 2012 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 20:01:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_Internet_is_a_=27Consciousness=27_My-2?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=A2?= Message-ID: The Internet is a 'Consciousness', It is 'alive' because it interacts across a 'collective-diversity of Minds' (Humans). It is this 'Diversity' we must protect. Thus People have a "Right to preserve that Diveristy", as a nourishment resource of Human Neuro-Intelligence. (Knowledge). Therfore 'Access to the Resource ('Consciousness') nourishment is a Human Right. Just as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), has supplied U.N. drop boxes of food such as 'Powdered-Milk' into impoverished or war-torn countries, "The Internet" is 'Powdered-Milk' to the minds of the Oppressed, Impoverished, and torn Human Condition, of those who live below the line of poverty. - Wow, you could have spun it this way, but you did not. (Retirement) Hey Vint, You go hungry ... you really disappointed the World, this time. Wow .... --- Consciousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Fri Jan 6 01:28:21 2012 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:28:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ginger, and Friends, Thanks for sharing. Regards K On 5 January 2012 17:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for > those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the > world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they > did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize > and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue > is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on > Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the > uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United > Nations’ special rapporteur went > so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool > for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and > parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet > access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology > is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for > something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the > things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like > freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any > particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end > up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a > horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case > was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were > granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that > we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of > speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily > bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the > United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access > a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an > end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right? > The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always > just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the > argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that > it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human > rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as > human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a > telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal > service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now > broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of > the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of > Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made > by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: > the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and > civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and > egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a > global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise > their human and civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to > empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. > That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses > and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work > toward this end. > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting > bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that > create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state > of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of > our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by > which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation > for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending > that access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and > chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 > > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 02:20:47 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:20:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Defensive Cyberweapon from Japan Govt. Message-ID: <1325834447.50545.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Friends, Just to share with you the information about Anti-Cyber-Attack application development. Different countries also working on the similar application tools to secure and protect their network and Internet Systems from DDOS type cyber attacks. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120102002799.htm  Japan Govt. is working for Defensive Cyberweapon, they have testing an application in closed network successfully. The Defense Ministry's Technical Research and Development Institute, which is in charge of weapons development, outsourced the project's development to a private company. Fujitsu Ltd. won the contract to develop the virus, as well as a system to monitor and analyze cyber-attacks for 178.5 million yen. Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 03:29:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:29:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: ,<7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F06B0D3.5070904@gmail.com> by creating a rights framework, the rights disabling technologies would need a severe justification and shift the burden of proof as to reasonableness... but what we have is respect for property rights allowing designers complete autonomy in designing and setting up stuff and when the like of Apple get caught "collecting" GPS location information it is not a rights violation and can be meet with "oops" (notwithstanding the multiple other violations that such "design" flaw created)... On 2012/01/05 11:42 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the > end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling > technologies instead of rights-disabling ones. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 03:23:30 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:23:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <20120106003056.80FF915C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <20120105143137.9A3BD15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> <4F05BE3F.7060308@gmail.com> <20120106003056.80FF915C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4F06AF82.1030505@gmail.com> On negative and positive dimensions of the rights, it is important to note that this typically applies to "state action" and the role of private providers under HR laws may be somewhat out of the fold... The issue is that by labeling it a human right even as a positive right is the view that it should be "progressively realised"... and on progressive realisation there has typically been a dispute between first world (negative rights proponents - i.e. in IMF/WBank conditionalities etc) and some in the Third World pushing for more development orientated international framework so that progressive realisation is enabled (by international rules/norms) rather than left to its national self... riaz ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 03:34:03 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:34:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Understanding the IT Lobby - An eye opener In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06B1FB.90204@gmail.com> Fouad I will look through the documents you post sometime soon. But it is not just lobbyists but also a range of other players, including in civil society, that IMHO act as lobbyists (one need only look at the positions of some "progressives" in the CIR debate) and who openly argued for what I see as US exceptionalism (I know this was denied by some on this list, but I have personal experience on this, so...). The point is that public interest itself is something that needs to be contested. It is not just one's location as a lobbyist or civil society grouping (for instance on some of the SOPA stuff, the lobbyists of some tech companies had a lot in common with public interest groups - which may make them allies, but whether they are dependable or not remains to be seen) that matters... so some articles drawing the lines in the sand around civil society groups may also be interesting... Riaz On 2012/01/06 02:22 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > In the past, the following document was something that helped in > better understanding the business side of lobbying. I have attempted > to understand in the context of Internet related lobbying which is > related. The following document provides a reasonably deep insight > into how the industry carries out IT Lobbying and what issues make it > do so: > > http://actonline.org/publications/2008/08/05/understanding-the-it-lobby-an-insiders-guide/ > http://actonline.org/publications/files/rcpg61911proof.pdf > > Similarly, the word Free as in Free Software is also not welcome by > many lobbyists in the above area: > http://actonline.org/publications/files/090622-act-paying-for-free-vfinalweb.pdf > > With SOPA, DCMA, ACTA and so forth, it seems that in no manner do > lobbyists want to think outside of a US-Centric Internet and IPR > Interest system. Profits will never account to freedoms I suppose at > any stage. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 03:49:05 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:19:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4F06B581.3030401@itforchange.net> I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, individual government officials and third-parties that could gain authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" infrastructures. (Norbert) Dear Norbert, The best way to do what you seek is to get into globally negotiating some kind of framework of principles, which was the idea behind looking at a UN sponsored Framework Convention on the Internet. Once such a framework of principles is in place it can constrain any new agency which is otherwise required to addressed many legitimate global Internet-related public policy concerns from abusing its position and power. Such 'consitutionalism' is the established practice to check executive and legislative power. Civil society groups will be able to use such agreed principles to seek accountability etc. As you say, it is time that global IG related civil society, which till now have completely shied away from this subject, other than perhaps considering it as some kind of a conspiracy of the devil, begins to take a considered and nuanced position on this subject which is recognised under the term 'enhanced cooperation'. Such a stance of the civil society is even more objectionable when inter-governmental systems consisting of the most powerful governments already direct and control political evolution of the Internet to a considerable extent. Such direction/ control include developing Internet principles, applicable by default to the whole world. And many of the IG civil society who remain mute or strongly oppose the enhanced cooperation subject, do actively support such development of global Internet principles by these globally undemocratic platforms. The latest in this line is a reversal of the June 2011 stand of the CSISAC - the civil society group attached to OECD's Internet policy apparatus - to not support OECD's Internet policy principles, whereby it has now issued a press release welcoming these principles. The spectacle of a soft and friendly approach to Internet policy making by the richest countries of the world coupled with a knee jerk rabid opposition to involving all countries in similar global Internet policy making is something which would be anathema to progressive global civil society in any other area. I have never understood how the involved people justify this to themselves. But in any case, coming back to the subject, the Internet Governance Caucus, if it has to lay claim to be a really global CS body, must look into this issue with greater earnestness and prepare a well-thought-out position for the May 2012 consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. With wishes for a great 2012 to all! parminder On Monday 02 January 2012 06:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations > in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how > the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the > risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, > individual government officials and third-parties that could gain > authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" > infrastructures. > -------------- 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 naveedpta at hotmail.com Fri Jan 6 04:21:51 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 09:21:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree too .. i mean from a public management prospective, declaring Internet as a human right will just make an extra layer of obligation to the government to provide access to every citizen in an economy. which i believe is not fair. Yes.! It is now a critical aspect of every one's daily life but declaring it as Human Right may not be justified in developing economies especially those who are striving hard to increase the proliferation and access .. ! Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq Assistant Director (ICT) Pakistan Telecom Authority Headquarters F-5/1, Islamabad Ph. +92-51-9203911 Fax. +92-51-2878124 Mob. +92-342-5554444 From: gpaque at gmail.com Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: January 4, 2012 Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF Reston, Va. FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 6 04:22:49 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:22:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] MEGIG References: <4EFDDFF3.8000504@itforchange.net> <20120102130734.7073515C136@quill.bollow.ch> <4F06B581.3030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C8D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody I think we should continue with the debate where we ended in Nairobi. The idea here was to use the existing numerous efforts to propose "Internet Governance Principles" (including the IBSA proposals and elements from the Shanghai group, the London Agenda, the G 8 Deauville principles as well as the two regional documens from the COE and the OECD etc.) as a "source of inspiration" and to work towards a multistakeholder "Framework of Understanding" or a "Framework of Commitments" (FoU or FoC). This could be done in connection with the IGFs and could be finished in 2015 when the IGF has its 10th anniversary. The problem is, as we know that the IGF is multistakeholder but has no negotiations capacity (and should not get it). The United Nations do have a negotiations capacity, but are not multistakeholder. With other words, here is a missing link which could be filled by a WGIG type new body (WGIG produced text which was not only adopted by governments but pleased also other stakeholders and developing countries). Such a "Multistakeholder Expert Group on Internet Governance" (MEGIG) should have a very limited manadate (produce nothing more than a text for a FoU or FoC). It could have 48 members, 12 by each stakeholder group selected by the stakeholders themselves (eventually via the MAG). It could hjuse for its work the IGF secretariat service but would work independently. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Fr 06.01.2012 09:49 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] UN GA resolution and enhanced cooperation I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, individual government officials and third-parties that could gain authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" infrastructures. (Norbert) Dear Norbert, The best way to do what you seek is to get into globally negotiating some kind of framework of principles, which was the idea behind looking at a UN sponsored Framework Convention on the Internet. Once such a framework of principles is in place it can constrain any new agency which is otherwise required to addressed many legitimate global Internet-related public policy concerns from abusing its position and power. Such 'consitutionalism' is the established practice to check executive and legislative power. Civil society groups will be able to use such agreed principles to seek accountability etc. As you say, it is time that global IG related civil society, which till now have completely shied away from this subject, other than perhaps considering it as some kind of a conspiracy of the devil, begins to take a considered and nuanced position on this subject which is recognised under the term 'enhanced cooperation'. Such a stance of the civil society is even more objectionable when inter-governmental systems consisting of the most powerful governments already direct and control political evolution of the Internet to a considerable extent. Such direction/ control include developing Internet principles, applicable by default to the whole world. And many of the IG civil society who remain mute or strongly oppose the enhanced cooperation subject, do actively support such development of global Internet principles by these globally undemocratic platforms. The latest in this line is a reversal of the June 2011 stand of the CSISAC - the civil society group attached to OECD's Internet policy apparatus - to not support OECD's Internet policy principles, whereby it has now issued a press release welcoming these principles. The spectacle of a soft and friendly approach to Internet policy making by the richest countries of the world coupled with a knee jerk rabid opposition to involving all countries in similar global Internet policy making is something which would be anathema to progressive global civil society in any other area. I have never understood how the involved people justify this to themselves. But in any case, coming back to the subject, the Internet Governance Caucus, if it has to lay claim to be a really global CS body, must look into this issue with greater earnestness and prepare a well-thought-out position for the May 2012 consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'. With wishes for a great 2012 to all! parminder On Monday 02 January 2012 06:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: I would suggest that we should use the time until those consultations in May to figure out appropriate, nuanced positions and proposals on how the legitimate needs of governments can be met without increasing the risks for human rights violations by giving undue power to governments, individual government officials and third-parties that could gain authorized access e.g. to government-mandated "data retention" infrastructures. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 05:19:46 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:19:46 +1100 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the important thing in what Vint is saying is this - QUOTE ³The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time.² END QUOTE What we currently define as the Internet wont be here forever ­ it will morph into another and hopefully much better global communications mechanism or series of mechanisms. We are already seeing Internet content being made available via mechanisms which would never be defined as internet, eg mobile phone apps, television publishing of you tube content etc. Unfortunately the history of rights in this area from a UN perspective continues to be haunted by the NWICO debates of the mid 1980s and the projected right to communicate, vigorously opposed by USA at the time and some of its allies. At that time the debate was about access to broadcasting and therefore to a large degree access to spectrum ­ and indeed these remain important issues. I would like to see our efforts going towards the right to access knowledge, the right to communicate, and freedom of speech. And I would like these to be enshrined as applicable (where appropriate) in all present and future media forms. Ian Peter From: gpaque at gmail.com Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-rig ht.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: January 4, 2012 Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF Reston, Va. FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations¹ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had ³become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.² Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn¹t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I¹m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here ‹ Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important ‹ though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a ³right² to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of ³universal service² ‹ the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. It is engineers ‹ and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ‹ that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection ‹ without pretending that access itself is such a right. Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 6 05:22:26 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:52:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] DCMA and Google's Filtering - What about the right to the Internet for rest of the world? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06CB62.2040702@itforchange.net> Dear Fouad You raise a very important issue. Use of the Internet for enforcing US law on the whole world is a huge problem, which problem will keep getting aggravated as the Internet increasingly mediates more and more of our social realities. This problem requires a well considered global response. Any suggestions about what it could be?? - which is an open question for all. Also to answer one of your specific questions, Fouad, - it is indeed similar to SOPA in its extra-territorial extension of US law. Parminder On Friday 06 January 2012 04:42 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a question as a result of something I have been noting for some > time now. Sometimes while I search for certain information via > www.google.com.pk, Pakistan's version of Google.com, I get a message > as below: > > "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital > Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. > If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the > removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org" > > This is Google's DCMA Policy: > http://support.google.com/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1386831 > > The question is, I am on a ccTLD and regional service of Google. > - Is Google bound to service my region (broker information, > information intermediary, information filtering) without any prior > information? > - Is it bound to enforce DCMA on Pakistan? > - How is this being implemented to a search request from a region by a > US based company's regional country specific service. > - Isn't this similar to SOPA? > - How does Google have the right to filter my results under any > copyright law that is not legislated by my country? > - How does Google have the right to enforce US based copyright laws > without a multilateral treaty or understanding? > - How do I get over this confusion now that I am witnessing it? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Jan 6 05:31:15 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:01:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen Message-ID: <4F06CD73.8010704@cis-india.org> Dear all, I thought I'd pass on a short general-audience post I wrote last month, as it provides an update on the goings-on in India. Regards, Pranesh # Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen Posted by Pranesh Prakash at Dec 15, 2011 05:30 AM | Permalink Filed under: IT Act, Google, Access to Knowledge, Social media, Freedom of Speech and Expression, Intellectual Property Rights, Intermediary Liability, Featured, Internet Governance, Censorship The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content. ## Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet. Intermediary Guidelines Rules In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness. ## Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post. ## Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well. ## 'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship. ## Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power. It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 05:50:21 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:50:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is paper a human right? Is pencil a human right? Is access to both a paper or pencil a human right? In my humble opinion, this article attempts to recognize the layer of abstractness between Technology as only a tool of the current age and Human Rights and Civil Liberties as universal in order to understand both the technical and civil roles. The larger point that Vint mentions that "technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself" says that there is something of more humane nature and need than just the technology in between. It just outlines in the following order: - Human Beings as Citizens, - Recognition of Human Rights (the right to freely communicate, share and express), - Technology (the tools), - Access (being able to access that tool), - Policy (government plans, regulations and action to achieve connectivity to the tool for its citizens), - Cost Control and Management (the dynamics of economy, demand and supply, market production and distribution), - Technology Evolves (update and upgrade both knowledge and infrastructure), - Waste (dumping old technology?) - Changing Needs (as human society progresses with technology) - Human Rights & Civil Liberty Violations, did the Internet violate those or did governments and corporations violate those? At the fundamental level, it is the duty/obligation of every government to create an enabling environment where its citizens can live and practice their fundamental human rights, can freely connect with each other, can freely share and interchange information with each other with the fear of violation of their fundamental rights (again greatly regulated under national constitutions). The tools then evolve and are used as Human Civilization embraces more and more scientific developments of its various needs. For example, despite the tall claims of my country's telecom regulatory bodies that Mobile Penetration reaches nearly half of the country's population, smart phones are both expensive and a luxury accessible to only a certain affording class while even for them Internet access is a luxury. The governance of the telecom actually delays and prevents society to shift to 3G or 4G access which again increases the access to luxurious 3G and 4G compliant technology. There really is not any line that we can draw here. In my recent visit to Kabul, 1MB of Internet connectivity stood at US$200 to US$300. In Pakistan, that is at only US$12. For Afghanistan to achieve that price and make it accessible for its citizens will remain a dream for many years to come. Why, Pakistan is population wise the 6th most populated country in the world and thus the 6th largest market for Internet and Telecom Services. The market in Pakistan has evolved only after insufficient struggle to provide basic human needs and infrastructure. In the cities for example, we have had less and less electricity since 2007. In rural regions where over 66% of national population resides, electricity may be available only for 2-4 hours max in a 24hr day. For both Pakistan and Afghanistan, electricity is a major issue and would electricity be subject to being an Human Right or a basic need for Humans to progress and participate in today's post-industrialized global economy? Is electricity a tool to run a bunch of other tools that help improve one's life or is it a human right that using it or not using it might end me up in jail because I did not use it to express myself? Electricity is a basic human need in today's world. I can still express with or without it. I can use solar power to charge my phone and send that particular SMS that can go viral. Then access to solar batteries would indeed be a challenge. Another important discussion here is that if humanity uses electricity to build a technology on which all human ideas, expression and knowledge is stored, how can I access that? Do I have the fundamental right to access that human knowledge? Will I have to use electric powered tools to communicate in order to practice my fundamental human right to communicate? Once I can communicate, how do I use these tools to freely share and raise my concerns or help others so how can I practice my freedom of speech. That has been the thin red line that prevails within the Human Rights Declaration and Internet Rights per say debate today. Is the tool the fundamental character or the tools to enable the right to access knowledge, the right to communicate, the right to freedom of speech? As Vint Cerf says, as these rights are universal to humanity, they are not bound to any particular technology at any particular time that also links Internet is valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. I taught thousands of Pakistani Web Masters and Internet Engineers from the very beginning of Internet/WWW penetration here since 1995 and have managed the country's critical Internet infrastructure in a government body in the past and continue to train governments and organizations on the use of Free & Open Source Software and Open Standards (Open ICT Ecosystems). It was both my professional and personal obligation to empower my fellow citizens with the knowledge and ethics of data, information and knowledge creation while maintaining safety and showing others how to use information while keeping safe. As the Internet and WWW continued to spread, To that end, I believe Vint Cerf simply says, protect existing civil and human rights without calling access to the tool a human right. Accessing that tool and expressing on it might get me jailed or killed, in our part of the world, it does. Help our governments first appreciate our Human Rights and Civil Liberties is what it directs at......but it does miss the point! Best Fouad On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Naveed haq wrote: > > I agree too .. i mean from a public management prospective, declaring > Internet as a human right will just make an extra layer of obligation to the > government to provide access to every citizen in an economy. which i believe > is not fair. Yes.! It is now a critical aspect of every one's daily life but > declaring it as Human Right may not be justified in developing economies > especially those who are striving hard to increase the proliferation and > access .. ! > > Best Regards, > > Naveed-ul-Haq > Assistant Director (ICT) > Pakistan Telecom Authority > Headquarters F-5/1, > Islamabad > Ph. +92-51-9203911 > Fax. +92-51-2878124 > Mob. +92-342-5554444 > > > ________________________________ > From: gpaque at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for > those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > > By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the > world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did > without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and > publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is > particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet > access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings > in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special > rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an > indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few > years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have > pronounced Internet access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology > is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for > something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the > things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like > freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any > particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end > up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a > horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was > the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were > granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that > we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of > speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily > bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the > United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access > a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an > end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The > same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a > tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that > it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human > right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they > are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a > telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” > — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband > Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. > When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as > a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the > responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil > rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian > platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. > As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and > civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower > users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That > means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and > worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward > this end. > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting > bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that > create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state > of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our > civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which > to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the > civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that > access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics > Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 6 06:13:23 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:13:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 00:42:06 on Fri, 6 Jan 2012, Yrjö Länsipuro writes >Roland mentions internet access in jails.  It is now tried out in > Finland in three minimum security prisons and will be extended to all >(14) soon, not as a right but as a means to help people serving their >sentences to study, to seek employment and to generally to prepare for >life after prison.  And that sounds like a very good thing to do, but I expect it's not the "uncensored and unmonitored" Internet access that most people wish for. >I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the >end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling >technologies instead of rights-disabling ones. This is also something highly desirable, and don't let us forget that as well as being protected from the viruses and worms, we should be protected from the *effects* of those viruses and worms - including destruction of data, identity and monetary theft, scams and invasions of our privacy. Technology can help give that protection. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jan 6 07:05:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:05:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F06E36D.5050800@cafonso.ca> After this ongoing and fascinating exegesis of Dr Cerf's "Internet fatwā" :), here is another good one for our thoughts: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf frt rgds --c.a. On 01/06/2012 08:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think the important thing in what Vint is saying is this - > > QUOTE ³The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom > of speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not > necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time.² END > QUOTE > > What we currently define as the Internet wont be here forever ­ it will > morph into another and hopefully much better global communications mechanism > or series of mechanisms. We are already seeing Internet content being made > available via mechanisms which would never be defined as internet, eg mobile > phone apps, television publishing of you tube content etc. > > Unfortunately the history of rights in this area from a UN perspective > continues to be haunted by the NWICO debates of the mid 1980s and the > projected right to communicate, vigorously opposed by USA at the time and > some of its allies. At that time the debate was about access to broadcasting > and therefore to a large degree access to spectrum ­ and indeed these remain > important issues. > > I would like to see our efforts going towards the right to access knowledge, > the right to communicate, and freedom of speech. And I would like these to > be enshrined as applicable (where appropriate) in all present and future > media forms. > > Ian Peter > > > > > From: gpaque at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-rig > ht.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for > those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > By VINTON G. CERF > Reston, Va. > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the > world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did > without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and > publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is > particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet > access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings > in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations¹ special > rapporteur > ternet-access-is-a-human-right.html> went so far as to declare that the > Internet had ³become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human > rights.² Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like > France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology > is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for > something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the > things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like > freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any > particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end > up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn¹t have a > horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was > the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were > granted a right to have a horse, I¹m not sure where I would put it. > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that > we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of > speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not necessarily > bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the > United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access > a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an > end, not as an end in itself. > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The > same reasoning above can be applied here ‹ Internet access is always just a > tool for obtaining something else more important ‹ though the argument that > it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human > right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they > are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a ³right² to a > telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of ³universal service² > ‹ the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband > Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. > When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as > a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the > responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil > rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian > platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. > As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and > civil rights. > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower > users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That > means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and > worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward > this end. > It is engineers ‹ and our professional associations and standards-setting > bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ‹ that > create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state > of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our > civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which > to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the > civil and human rights that deserve protection ‹ without pretending that > access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and > chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Jan 6 07:26:03 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:26:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F06E36D.5050800@cafonso.ca> References: <4F06E36D.5050800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <8CE9A857D6711D9-1028-F97F@webmail-m071.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- Those of us who fought all thru the WSIS prepcoms know that a (lower case) "right to communicate" already exists, embodied in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights giving "everyone" freedom of opinion and expression, including the foresightedly written right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." We had to fight long and hard for reaffirmation of those terms in the WSIS final declarations, over the strenuous objections of the official Chinese and Pakistani representatives and their allies. Article 19 is both broad and specific enough to meet our needs. Effort need to be concentrated on gaining its implementation in countries where its obligations are ignored. Effort shouldn't be wasted in new rhetorical battles that neglect the "right to communicate" that we already have in principle. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso To: governance ; Ian Peter Sent: Fri, Jan 6, 2012 8:05 am Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR After this ongoing and fascinating exegesis of Dr Cerf's "Internet fatwā" :), here is another good one for our thoughts: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf frt rgds --c.a. On 01/06/2012 08:19 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think the important thing in what Vint is saying is this - > > QUOTE ³The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom > of speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not > necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time.² END > QUOTE > > What we currently define as the Internet wont be here forever ­ it will > morph into another and hopefully much better global communications mechanism > or series of mechanisms. We are already seeing Internet content being made > available via mechanisms which would never be defined as internet, eg mobile > phone apps, television publishing of you tube content etc. > > Unfortunately the history of rights in this area from a UN perspective > continues to be haunted by the NWICO debates of the mid 1980s and the > projected right to communicate, vigorously opposed by USA at the time and > some of its allies. At that time the debate was about access to broadcasting > and therefore to a large degree access to spectrum ­ and indeed these remain > important issues. > > I would like to see our efforts going towards the right to access knowledge, > the right to communicate, and freedom of speech. And I would like these to > be enshrined as applicable (where appropriate) in all present and future > media forms. > > Ian Peter > > > > > From: gpaque at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 07:33:30 -0430 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-rig > ht.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for > those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > By VINTON G. CERF > Reston, Va. > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the > world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that > interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of > people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did > without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and > publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is > particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet > access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings > in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations¹ special > rapporteur > ternet-access-is-a-human-right.html> went so far as to declare that the > Internet had ³become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human > rights.² Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like > France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology > is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for > something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the > things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like > freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any > particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end > up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn¹t have a > horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was > the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were > granted a right to have a horse, I¹m not sure where I would put it. > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that > we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of > speech and freedom of access to information ‹ and those are not necessarily > bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the > United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access > a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an > end, not as an end in itself. > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The > same reasoning above can be applied here ‹ Internet access is always just a > tool for obtaining something else more important ‹ though the argument that > it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human > right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they > are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a ³right² to a > telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of ³universal service² > ‹ the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband > Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. > When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as > a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the > responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil > rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian > platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. > As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and > civil rights. > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower > users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That > means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and > worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward > this end. > It is engineers ‹ and our professional associations and standards-setting > bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ‹ that > create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state > of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our > civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which > to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the > civil and human rights that deserve protection ‹ without pretending that > access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at the > Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and > chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Jan 6 07:30:39 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:30:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from developing economies in the new gTLD program Message-ID: hi, Carlos sending the pointer to the NTIA letter reminded me that IGC sometimes takes an interest in ICANN issues beyond the meta issue of ICANN being allowed to exist at all. On a slightly different note, the ICANN Board has responded to the recommendation made by the Applicant Support WG that has been requesting support for applicants from developing economies with a program of support for such applicants. This program is currently open to public comment until 10 Jan. While I am sure there is not enough time for the IGC to comment, some individual participants of this list or members of the IGC may want to comment. The information can be found at: and the comment period ends on 10 Jan. Some initial comments from the group that made the recommendations can be found at: avri____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 6 07:56:07 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:56:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from developing economies in the new gTLD program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Avri for sharing this important information. It's a pity that we as IGC does not seem to have sufficient time for our own comment, but I also want to encourage each member or like-minded members to consider submission. izumi 2012/1/6 Avri Doria : > hi, > > Carlos sending the pointer to the NTIA letter reminded me that IGC sometimes takes an interest in ICANN issues beyond the meta issue of ICANN being allowed to exist at all. > > On a slightly different note, the ICANN Board has responded to the recommendation made by the Applicant Support WG that has been requesting support for applicants from developing economies with a program of support for such applicants. > > This program is currently open to public comment until 10 Jan.  While I am sure there is not enough time for the IGC to comment, some individual participants of this list or members of the IGC may want to comment.  The information can be found at:   and the comment period ends on 10 Jan. > > Some initial comments from the group that made the recommendations can be found at: > > avri____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 08:57:17 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 18:57:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from developing economies in the new gTLD program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001801cccc7b$1c570350$550509f0$@yahoo.com> Dear Izumi and Avri, thanks for reminding for comments. Call for the public comments for the Financial Assistance Policy is the consequence to the previous submitted comments on the "JAS WG Second Milestone Report". MyTLD & UISoc contributions are being reflected in the report published by JAS WG: “http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg-second-milesto ne-report-18oct11-en.pdf”. JAS WG Final report was published for comments on 13 Oct and comments period closed on 19th Dec. Now it is required that the following Financial Assistance Handbook, Support Criteria and Process: Draft Financial Assistance Handbook: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-financial-assistance-handbook -20dec11-en.pdf Support Criteria: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support-criteria-10 dec11-en.pdf Support Process: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support-process-10d ec11-en.pdf May please be evaluated by on the basis (grounds) of previously submitted comments of MyTLD & UISoc as mentioned in the report: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg-second-mileston e-report-18oct11-en.pdf If someone from the CS IGC can help me to draft a quick review comparison during this weekend, it will be helpful to submit response within given timeframe. The communities from least/under developed economies will be highly appreciated. Individuals may also contact me off-the-list if required. Thanking you, Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 05:56 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from > developing economies in the new gTLD program > > Thank you Avri for sharing this important information. It's a pity that we as > IGC does not seem to have sufficient time for our own comment, but I also > want to encourage each member or like-minded members to consider > submission. > > izumi > > > 2012/1/6 Avri Doria : > > hi, > > > > Carlos sending the pointer to the NTIA letter reminded me that IGC > sometimes takes an interest in ICANN issues beyond the meta issue of > ICANN being allowed to exist at all. > > > > On a slightly different note, the ICANN Board has responded to the > recommendation made by the Applicant Support WG that has been > requesting support for applicants from developing economies with a > program of support for such applicants. > > > > This program is currently open to public comment until 10 Jan.  While I am > sure there is not enough time for the IGC to comment, some individual > participants of this list or members of the IGC may want to comment.  The > information can be found at:   comment/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook-20dec11-en.htm> and the > comment period ends on 10 Jan. > > > > Some initial comments from the group that made the recommendations > can > > be found at: > > > ort+Implementation> > > > > > avri________________________________________________________ > ____ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- >                         >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 6 08:59:13 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:59:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] UK response to Internet Freedom issues Message-ID: "the Prime Minister did not call for social networks should be closed down in the aftermath of the riots." "explicit rejection of default censorship of adult content, and the suggestion that the Government will mandate Internet filters" etc -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 09:26:38 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 19:26:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from developing economies in the new gTLD program In-Reply-To: <001801cccc7b$1c570350$550509f0$@yahoo.com> References: <001801cccc7b$1c570350$550509f0$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01cccc7f$35e959e0$a1bc0da0$@yahoo.com> Dear Friends, Loser of the Financial Support will also his all the money: The important point to discuss is "Those who do not meet the criteria threshold will be disqualified from the new gTLD process altogether and lose their $47K fee". In order to fulfill the support criteria through a support process in a short time may become very risky for the prospective applicant (individuals or organizations). He/They also have to provide evidence documents that he/they demanded funds from other NGO's or local government but they refused. The candidate will have to provide evidence that the initial funds of US$47K are the maximum funds he/they can afford, and there is no more funds are available with him/them. If the statement of candidate/applicant for support is true but refuses due to any reason or point scores, he will be disqualified and ICANN will retain his initial and total funds of US$47K. Where he will go, where he stands? This policy will reduce the option of public & community participation from the developing economies automatically and especially for those who would need support for IDN framework development to incorporate local languages on the Internet Domain System. Regards Imran Ahmad Shah > -----Original Message----- > From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 06:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'Avri Doria' > Cc: imran at uisoc.org > Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from > developing economies in the new gTLD program > > Dear Izumi and Avri, thanks for reminding for comments. > > Call for the public comments for the Financial Assistance Policy is the > consequence to the previous submitted comments on the "JAS WG Second > Milestone Report". MyTLD & UISoc contributions are being reflected in the > report published by JAS WG: > “http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg- > second-milesto > ne-report-18oct11-en.pdf”. > > JAS WG Final report was published for comments on 13 Oct and comments > period closed on 19th Dec. > > Now it is required that the following Financial Assistance Handbook, Support > Criteria and Process: > Draft Financial Assistance Handbook: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-financial-assistance- > handbook > -20dec11-en.pdf > Support Criteria: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support-criteria- > 10 > dec11-en.pdf > Support Process: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support- > process-10d > ec11-en.pdf > May please be evaluated by on the basis (grounds) of previously submitted > comments of MyTLD & UISoc as mentioned in the report: > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg- > second-mileston > e-report-18oct11-en.pdf > > If someone from the CS IGC can help me to draft a quick review comparison > during this weekend, it will be helpful to submit response within given > timeframe. The communities from least/under developed economies will be > highly appreciated. Individuals may also contact me off-the-list if required. > > Thanking you, > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > > Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 05:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant > > from developing economies in the new gTLD program > > > > Thank you Avri for sharing this important information. It's a pity > > that we > as > > IGC does not seem to have sufficient time for our own comment, but I > > also want to encourage each member or like-minded members to consider > > submission. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/1/6 Avri Doria : > > > hi, > > > > > > Carlos sending the pointer to the NTIA letter reminded me that IGC > > sometimes takes an interest in ICANN issues beyond the meta issue of > > ICANN being allowed to exist at all. > > > > > > On a slightly different note, the ICANN Board has responded to the > > recommendation made by the Applicant Support WG that has been > > requesting support for applicants from developing economies with a > > program of support for such applicants. > > > > > > This program is currently open to public comment until 10 Jan. > > > While I > am > > sure there is not enough time for the IGC to comment, some individual > > participants of this list or members of the IGC may want to comment. > > The information can be found at:   > comment/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook-20dec11-en.htm> and > the > > comment period ends on 10 Jan. > > > > > > Some initial comments from the group that made the recommendations > > can > > > be found at: > > > > > pp > > > ort+Implementation> > > > > > > > > > avri________________________________________________________ > > ____ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > -- > >                         >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Fri Jan 6 13:35:30 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:35:30 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: ,<7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> Message-ID: <009901cccca2$07b80350$172809f0$@uol.com.br> HI Yrjö As you said, ( I agree with Avri point too) we may not misinterpret the facility to deploy Internet to all and as such given them the right to get free information and use the power to communicate with become a human right itself. Vint is right. Internet is a tool for freedom, and to make more easily available the basic human rights. Best, De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Yrjö Länsipuro Enviada em: quinta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2012 19:42 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org Assunto: RE: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Hi all, At least Vint's op-ed sparked an interesting discussion on various lists. IMO, relevant human rights are formulated in UDHR, particularly in Article 19, and other comparable documents. In 1948, there was no Internet, and "through any media" referred to whatever media there was at the time. But today, internet is certainly the main vehicle/tool/enabler for the implementation of these human rights, and denial of access to the Internet certainly equals denial of human rights. Vint mentions a couple of countries where access to the Internet has been proclaimed a human right. Sometimes Finland is also listed among them. However, the decision to make broadband available to all ( permanent residences and places of business) is technically a universal service obligation, and access is not defined as a human right as such. Roland mentions internet access in jails. It is now tried out in Finland in three minimum security prisons and will be extended to all (14) soon, not as a right but as a means to help people serving their sentences to study, to seek employment and to generally to prepare for life after prison. I agree with Avri that the most valuable point of the op-end is at the end: technologists should focus on creating rights-enabling technologies instead of rights-disabling ones. Yrjö > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 12:55:24 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > Hi, > > I agree with those who beleive that Vint's Opinion piece is problematic. I think he misses the point on several levels though I think he does make one critical point that hits the mark. > > - As some have pointed out the Internet is not technology, the Internet may be enabled by technology but it is a whole lot more than that, most especially it is the content one can publish and consume using the technology. The Internet is more like the published word, than it is like a horse. The Internet is not technology, it is not even totally shaped by technology as the techno-policy aspects are greater in many respects than the bit and bytes of the protocol designs and implementations. To say that people have a right to Internet access is a lot like saying people have a right of access to published material. > > - Another point he misses is contained in: "Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings." While I am glad that he does not go all the way to define where intrinsic rights come from, for all intents and purpose Human Rights and Civil Rights are defined by the same set of basic rights documents: the UDHR , the ICCPR and the ICESCR . To set these things as somehow separate and coming from different origins takes us back to the battle between Natural and Legal rights. The documents referred to above, an UNGA resolution (soft law) and two binding treaties (binding law), sometimes referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights, moved us beyond that argument putting both Human and Civil rights on a legal basis. It is a category error to place them in opposition to each other. > > Unfortunately the most important point he makes is almost swallowed by the problematic background of the paper: That technologists need to focus on the creation of rights-enabling technology as opposed to rights-disabling technology. This is, in my opinion the critical thing to take from this piece, problematic aspects aside. Personally I think a lot of the technology that has gone in enabling the Internet has indeed being rights-enabling. In recent years, however, much has been done by technical companies to create a great amount of rights-disabling technology. And this is the big warning I take from the piece. Technology companies have to stop endangering people's rights in their quest of profits and government approval. > > I hope those reading this piece among the technology purveyors and technical developers pay attention and stop creating the technology that disables the right-enabling characteristic of the Internet. It is good that someone as revered as he is by many in our corner of the world, should make this sort of statement. > > avri > > > > On 5 Jan 2012, at 07:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-rig ht.html?nl=todaysheadlines &emc=tha212 > > > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: > > January 4, 2012 > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right > > By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. > > > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. > > > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > > > Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > Diplo Foundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 15:43:17 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 01:13:17 +0430 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <009901cccca2$07b80350$172809f0$@uol.com.br> References: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> <009901cccca2$07b80350$172809f0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Dear all, I agree with many opinions expressed here. In that context I'd like to bring up a recent example from Armenia, when a life-sentenced person was allowed to have a personal blog on the Internet and even had the opportunity to have his book published/printed. On the other hand, I understand the approach, when the Internet is regarded as an *enabling tool* to exercise human rights, such as freedom of speech, access to information and knowledge, etc. If Internet is simply determined as human right many questions arise (at least to me). Such as, is it a human right to use Internet to disseminate propaganda, hate speech, racism etc? Is it a human right to access inappropriate content (such as child abuse) in countries, having weak legislations and not criminalizing such activities? Best, Narine Khachatryan Media Education Center, Armenia www.mediaeducation.am www.safe.am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 6 16:39:32 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:39:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <7BE0875B-C4AD-4ED4-BBF1-8B54A935CD79@acm.org> <009901cccca2$07b80350$172809f0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: In message , at 01:13:17 on Sat, 7 Jan 2012, Narine Khachatryan writes >Is it a human right to access inappropriate content (such as child >abuse) in countries, having weak legislations and not criminalizing >such activities Is it a violation of [the perpetrator's] human rights to deny any future Internet access to someone convicted of Internet-related child abuse crimes? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Jan 6 18:29:25 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 00:29:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16221073.62545.1325892565654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e27> Dear Ginger and members of the IG list   I am really grateful to Vinton Cerf for his valuable statement in the NYT (thanks to Ginger). I’d even be more than happy if he were to read it on the next WSIS Forum in May, let’s say during the “High Level Opening Session !   In a necessarily short article Vinton Cerf found the right words for countering the ICT/Internet evangelists –the heads of ITU and UNESCO, in tune with Cisco and Carlos Slim are some of the most zealous for different but concurrent reasons- who are using the context of WSIS ad nauseam, to convince the whole world that access to ICTs and Internet IS TO BE a Human Right. What’s more, this “new age human right” has shifted from “old fashioned DSL access” to Broadband access two years ago, with the full blessing of UNESCO (many thanks from the corporate ICT world !) and the ITU. Listen to their apologia for the “Broadband as a basic need for DCs, like water” during the WSIS Forum last year, on the ITU WSIS website ! Never was this shocking comparison questioned by any African representative, even from the civil society.   That’s why Vinton’s statement is not only right in words and in time, but also urgently needed for bringing this derailing WSIS bandwagon on a new track, i.e. on actual Human needs, namely those mentioned by the MDGs, the Earth Summits (i.a. Jo’burg)  and the Fourth UN Conference of the Least Developed Countries (LDC IV, Istanbul 2011). For this to happen, Vinton’s statement that “Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself” is the fundamental idea to take in account.   What’s more, he considers “the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights” as a fundamental issue. And he adds “As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise”. Isn’t that at the very core of the WSIS discussion and of the CS commitment ?   The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the population.           Notwithstanding, my warmest congratulations and gratitude to Vinton Cerf for this brilliant lesson. Let’s hope that those to whom it is addressed are able for listening it.   Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT, France   > Message du 05/01/12 13:04 > De : "Ginger Paque" > A : "I G List" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: January 4, 2012 Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF Reston, Va. FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Jan 7 03:54:30 2012 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:54:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <16221073.62545.1325892565654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e27> Message-ID: Dear Ginger, Avri, Jean-Louis and other members of the list I would like to join my support to Jean-Louis¹s approach to Vint Cerf¹s comment and make it a plea not to confuse technology with humanity, so as to remain people-centered as a civil society group. I understand the need to bridge the digital divide and to ensure that ICT-driven media foster equality and solidarity. But, the real human rights behind access to internet already exist, and they are related to freedom of expression and freedom of diffusion, as well as right to dignity, equality, privacy, education and participation (among the most important). Access per se doesn¹t make sense, because it is too easily confused and confined to technological hook-up: access is also about understanding quality content, using it and eventually producing it (which requires education, expression...). It doesn¹t mean that we can¹t battle to ask for cheaper, open, interoperable access to broadband but it has to be seen as an enhancer of rights and not be confused as a right in itself. I would rather plea for a broader information and communication rights package that supports individual and collective creativity as well as pluralism of ideas. What we need to engage in, when dealing with this issue in multi-stakeholder perspective is to ensure that the engineering community is ethically minded and considers those human rights in the early design process of ICTs, not as post-production gimmick under the form of opaque guidelines for indiscrimate users. We need to ensure that human rights applied to ICT-driven media maintain their capacity to evolve for the benefit of people and we need to keep concentrating on relevant international instruments to ensure just that. As such we cannot let the technical community focus our attention on a single aspect of the package that happens to play in favour of the commercial expansion of proprietary infrastructures. Let¹s keep our attention focused on open software, public value, information commons, net neutrality and interoperability. This should empower people to prevent fragmentation of the networks, privatisation and monopolistic property, unwarranted surveillance, and threats on freedom of expression and dignity. Best Divina Divina Frau-Meigs Professor, Sorbonne nouvelle University New books: Divina Frau-Meigs, Socialisation des jeunes et éducation aux médias, Eres, 2011 To order: http://www.editions-eres.com/parutions/education-formation/education-et-soci ete/p2839-socialisation-des-jeunes-et-education-aux-medias.htm and download online chapter on ³news and youth images² by clicking on "Supplément à l'ouvrage" Divina Frau-Meigs, Media Matters in the Cultural Contradictions of the ŒInformation Society¹: towards a human-rights based governance, Council of Europe publishing, 2011 To order : http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=26 06 Le 07/01/12 00:29, « Jean-Louis FULLSACK » a écrit : > > > In a necessarily short article Vinton Cerf found the right words for > countering the ICT/Internet evangelists ­the heads of ITU and UNESCO, in tune > with Cisco and Carlos Slim are some of the most zealous for different but > concurrent reasons- who are using the context of WSIS ad nauseam, to convince > the whole world that access to ICTs and Internet IS TO BE a Human Right. > What¹s more, this ³new age human right² has shifted from ³old fashioned DSL > access² to Broadband access two years ago, with the full blessing of UNESCO > (many thanks from the corporate ICT world !) and the ITU. Listen to their > apologia for the ³Broadband as a basic need for DCs, like water² during the > WSIS Forum last year, on the ITU WSIS website ! > > Never was this shocking comparison questioned by any African representative, > even from the civil society. > > > > That¹s why Vinton¹s statement is not only right in words and in time, but also > urgently needed for bringing this derailing WSIS bandwagon on a new track, > i.e. on actual Human needs, namely those mentioned by the MDGs, the Earth > Summits (i.a. Jo¹burg) and the Fourth UN Conference of the Least Developed > Countries (LDC IV, Istanbul 2011). For this to happen, Vinton¹s statement that > > ³Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself² > > is the fundamental idea to take in account. > > > > What¹s more, he considers ³the responsibility of technology creators > themselves to support human and civil rights² as a fundamental issue. And he > adds > > ³As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in > society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our > engineering expertise². > > Isn¹t that at the very core of the WSIS discussion and of the CS commitment ? > > > > The only issue I missed in Vinton¹s statement is the mention of the pharaonic > amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in > DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone > users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial > resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the > population. > > > > Notwithstanding, my warmest congratulations and gratitude to Vinton Cerf for > this brilliant lesson. Let¹s hope that those to whom it is addressed are able > for listening it. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 04:46:00 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 14:16:00 +0430 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <16221073.62545.1325892565654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e27> Message-ID: Dear all, I fully support the opinion of Divina Frau-Meigs. There are a number of researches saying that the spread of ICTs results in increased inequalities in the societies and new forms of inequalities, since only people able to gain from the new opportunities benefit from Internet and ICTs. One of the arguments is that law-income countries often have scarce resources for investment, if those investments are directed to ICTs, basic needs still may not be addressed. I put a link to a research paper by Mansell (LSE), who demonstrates, that ICTs can bring ‘destabilizing effects on the economies’ of poor countries. The question is *how* these ICTs are introduced in developing countries, having, for instance, less than 1 per cent of broadband penetration and less than 4 per cent of Internet users. ICTs are recognized as tools fostering inclusion in the society on one hand, and promoting greater participation of people in decision-making processes, on the other hand. However, being tools of empowerment, in authoritarian regimes ICTs can be turned into instruments of censorship, surveillance and oppression. Access to ICTs means increased access to information and knowledge, but it does not necessarily mean that people who receive the access will *use*, * process* and *multiply* the knowledge. Developing countries often have very poor local content, Internet resources consumed by people are mostly of external origin and mainly serve entertainment purposes. And the divide is growing *not only* because the access to ICTs are unequal, but mainly because the *ability* to process information become unequal (critical thinking skills and the ability to create own content). Therefore, ICT access issues need to be re-assessed in terms of *skills*and *capabilities* which people need to better participate in their societies, to gain from new education and learning opportunities. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24990/1/The_Information_Society_and_ICT_Policy_(LSERO).pdf Best, Narine Khachatryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sat Jan 7 05:27:53 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:27:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <243FDA19-0D6D-43C8-B451-EBB32A4CDC76@digsys.bg> On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:38 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F05927F.3040302 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:07:27 on Thu, 5 Jan 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and >> diversified space which represents this network of networks in its >> multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just >> technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going >> on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as >> well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. > > What Vint is saying is that while there's strong support for a right to communicate, that doesn't mean there's a right to have every means of communication (that's where he's coming from with analogy about horses). I read it more like human rights should not be reduced to right to access the Internet. That is, the human right is to access information trough any available means, including the Internet. The analogy with the 'to have a horse right' simply says that at some time, in the future, there may not be necessary to have access to Internet in order to communicate with others -- therefore, 'Internet access as your human right' will be pretty much useless. This time we seem to be in agreement with Vint. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sat Jan 7 05:42:29 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 12:42:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <16221073.62545.1325892565654.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e27> Message-ID: <7B8E3117-C306-4D72-9B05-5854DCE81C3C@digsys.bg> On Jan 7, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Narine Khachatryan wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I fully support the opinion of Divina Frau-Meigs. There are a number of researches saying that the spread of ICTs results in increased inequalities in the societies and new forms of inequalities, since only people able to gain from the new opportunities benefit from Internet and ICTs. > Imagine, that due to something (lets call it mutation) small part of the humans obtain the ability to communicate with each other, at any distance without any external (to their body/mind) tools. In essence, these humans will have no use of 'Internet'. Now, the rest of the 'society' will be hugely disadvantaged. How bad is this? It will be very bad, for those wishing to control them, for they will be using a 'private' medium, one that is not offered as an external service. Even today, there are individuals that are better at certain things, than others. It has been so ever since human society exist. The concept of 'human rights' is here because not everybody is equal. It is here, because some human beings ARE 'better' than others (at the same time, others might be better than those in a different scope). > One of the arguments is that law-income countries often have scarce resources for investment, if those investments are directed to ICTs, basic needs still may not be addressed. I put a link to a research paper by Mansell (LSE), who demonstrates, that ICTs can bring ‘destabilizing effects on the economies’ of poor countries. > This is not because of investment in ICT, but because of how this investment is made. > The question is how these ICTs are introduced in developing countries, having, for instance, less than 1 per cent of broadband penetration and less than 4 per cent of Internet users. Everything has a price. If you want to 'very quickly become as good as that one' and the gap is wide, you need to pay more (in whatever resources). With regards to broadband penetration, the key is to find the balance -- available resources, user needs, local content etc. History (in other countries) shows that a good balance can result in extremely fast closing of the gap and generally better Internet (broadband) penetration than that of 'developed' countries. > > ICTs are recognized as tools fostering inclusion in the society on one hand, and promoting greater participation of people in decision-making processes, on the other hand. However, being tools of empowerment, in authoritarian regimes ICTs can be turned into instruments of censorship, surveillance and oppression. > > > Access to ICTs means increased access to information and knowledge, but it does not necessarily mean that people who receive the access will use, process and multiply the knowledge. > > Yes. Internet does not develop by mandate. Internet, and the associated knowledge is one of these things that grows by itself. It is very wrong to push it. You just need to create adequate environment and these things will happen "by miracle". > > Developing countries often have very poor local content, Internet resources consumed by people are mostly of external origin and mainly serve entertainment purposes. And the divide is growing not only because the access to ICTs are unequal, but mainly because the ability to process information become unequal (critical thinking skills and the ability to create own content). > > I have not observed, that people in 'less developed' countries are less able to process information. My observation is exactly the opposite. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jan 7 05:53:15 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:53:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F08241B.3060608@cafonso.ca> Dear people, the way this exegesis is going soon we will find ourselves condemming Finland for establishing in law that access to broadband is a basic right of every Finnish citizen, access to roads is not a right per se since a road is a building technology, access to decent housing is likewise not a right, and so on. Noticing of course that everyone in this debate has plenty of access (to all these "technologies") relative to the specific circumstances of each one's countries. Interesting. Reminds me of the absurd philosophizing when Dr Cerf and his flock defended that the logical infrastructure should not be touched in the Internet govenance debate because of a fatwa (furiously defended by the business community) saying "thou shalt not touch what is not broken", and from this a lengthy debate ensued until we managed to reluctantly agree to the elusive "critical Internet resources" phrase to let the theme into the Rio IGF. In the meantime Dr Cerf dropped this fatwa (which he used to teach in detail in his "Internet 101" speeches), his faithful followers took a while to assimilate it, and finally we could discuss ICANN in the IGF. fraternal regards --c.a. On 01/07/2012 06:54 AM, Divina MEIGS wrote: > > Dear Ginger, Avri, Jean-Louis and other members of the list > > I would like to join my support to Jean-Louis¹s approach to Vint Cerf¹s > comment and make it a plea not to confuse technology with humanity, so as > to remain people-centered as a civil society group. I understand the need to > bridge the digital divide and to ensure that ICT-driven media foster > equality and solidarity. But, the real human rights behind access to > internet already exist, and they are related to freedom of expression and > freedom of diffusion, as well as right to dignity, equality, privacy, > education and participation (among the most important). Access per se > doesn¹t make sense, because it is too easily confused and confined to > technological hook-up: access is also about understanding quality content, > using it and eventually producing it (which requires education, > expression...). > It doesn¹t mean that we can¹t battle to ask for cheaper, open, interoperable > access to broadband but it has to be seen as an enhancer of rights and not > be confused as a right in itself. I would rather plea for a broader > information and communication rights package that supports individual and > collective creativity as well as pluralism of ideas. > > What we need to engage in, when dealing with this issue in multi-stakeholder > perspective is to ensure that the engineering community is ethically minded > and considers those human rights in the early design process of ICTs, not as > post-production gimmick under the form of opaque guidelines for indiscrimate > users. We need to ensure that human rights applied to ICT-driven media > maintain their capacity to evolve for the benefit of people and we need to > keep concentrating on relevant international instruments to ensure just > that. As such we cannot let the technical community focus our attention on > a single aspect of the package that happens to play in favour of the > commercial expansion of proprietary infrastructures. Let¹s keep our > attention focused on open software, public value, information commons, net > neutrality and interoperability. This should empower people to prevent > fragmentation of the networks, privatisation and monopolistic property, > unwarranted surveillance, and threats on freedom of expression and dignity. > > Best > Divina > > Divina Frau-Meigs > Professor, Sorbonne nouvelle University > > New books: > Divina Frau-Meigs, Socialisation des jeunes et éducation aux médias, Eres, > 2011 > To order: > http://www.editions-eres.com/parutions/education-formation/education-et-soci > ete/p2839-socialisation-des-jeunes-et-education-aux-medias.htm and download > online chapter on ³news and youth images² by clicking on "Supplément à > l'ouvrage" > > Divina Frau-Meigs, Media Matters in the Cultural Contradictions of the > ŒInformation Society¹: towards a human-rights based governance, Council of > Europe publishing, 2011 > To order : > http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=26 > 06 > > > Le 07/01/12 00:29, « Jean-Louis FULLSACK » a écrit : > >> >> >> In a necessarily short article Vinton Cerf found the right words for >> countering the ICT/Internet evangelists ­the heads of ITU and UNESCO, in tune >> with Cisco and Carlos Slim are some of the most zealous for different but >> concurrent reasons- who are using the context of WSIS ad nauseam, to convince >> the whole world that access to ICTs and Internet IS TO BE a Human Right. >> What¹s more, this ³new age human right² has shifted from ³old fashioned DSL >> access² to Broadband access two years ago, with the full blessing of UNESCO >> (many thanks from the corporate ICT world !) and the ITU. Listen to their >> apologia for the ³Broadband as a basic need for DCs, like water² during the >> WSIS Forum last year, on the ITU WSIS website ! >> >> Never was this shocking comparison questioned by any African representative, >> even from the civil society. >> >> >> >> That¹s why Vinton¹s statement is not only right in words and in time, but also >> urgently needed for bringing this derailing WSIS bandwagon on a new track, >> i.e. on actual Human needs, namely those mentioned by the MDGs, the Earth >> Summits (i.a. Jo¹burg) and the Fourth UN Conference of the Least Developed >> Countries (LDC IV, Istanbul 2011). For this to happen, Vinton¹s statement that >> >> ³Technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself² >> >> is the fundamental idea to take in account. >> >> >> >> What¹s more, he considers ³the responsibility of technology creators >> themselves to support human and civil rights² as a fundamental issue. And he >> adds >> >> ³As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in >> society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our >> engineering expertise². >> >> Isn¹t that at the very core of the WSIS discussion and of the CS commitment ? >> >> >> >> The only issue I missed in Vinton¹s statement is the mention of the pharaonic >> amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in >> DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone >> users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial >> resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the >> population. >> >> >> >> Notwithstanding, my warmest congratulations and gratitude to Vinton Cerf for >> this brilliant lesson. Let¹s hope that those to whom it is addressed are able >> for listening it. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jan 7 12:52:15 2012 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:52:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?bonne_ann=E9e_2012?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325958735.82197.YahooMailNeo@web25906.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Merci Brice, Que cette année soit porteuse de toutes les bonnes choses pour toi également. Cordialement   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 : Brice Abba À : africann at afrinic.net Envoyé le : Dimanche 1 Janvier 2012 10h35 Objet : [governance] bonne année 2012 Hi ALL, Bonne Et Heureuse Année 2012 bon ak bon ane 2012 Happy New Year 2012 Frohes Neues Jahr 2012 Feliz Año Nuevo 2012 Feliz Ano Novo 2012 Gëzuar Vitin e Ri 2012 furaha ya Mwaka Mpya 2012 Felice Anno Nuovo 2012... ________________________________ Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiques mob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 8 02:14:58 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:44:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal Message-ID: <4F094272.7070707@itforchange.net> Important development, and clear justification for not expanding the IP legal infrastructure, especially in a manner that infringes basic human rights as being done by many other counties. ... parminder Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal *One in three people in Switzerland download unauthorized music, movies and games from the Internet and since last year the government has been wondering what to do about it. This week their response was published and it was crystal clear. Not only will downloading for personal use stay completely legal, but the copyright holders won’t suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.* In Switzerland, just as in dozens of other countries, the entertainment industries have been complaining about dramatic losses in revenue due to online piracy. In a response, the Swiss government has been conducting a study into the impact downloading has on society, and this week their findings were presented . The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change. Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that. Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach. “Every time a new media technology has been made available, it has always been ‘abused’. This is the price we pay for progress. Winners will be those who are able to use the new technology to their advantages and losers those who missed this development and continue to follow old business models,” the report notes. The government report further concludes that even in the current situation where piracy is rampant, the entertainment industries are not necessarily losing money. To reach this conclusion, the researchers extrapolated the findings of a study conducted by the Dutch government last year, since the countries are considered to be similar in many aspects. The report states that around a third of Swiss citizens over 15 years old download pirated music, movies and games from the Internet. However, these people don’t spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary. The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. And in the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from the sampling effect of file-sharing. The Swiss report then goes on to review several of the repressive anti-piracy laws and regulations that have been implemented in other countries recently, such as the three-strikes Hadopi law in France. According to the report 12 million was spent on Hadopi in France this year, a figure the Swiss deem too high. The report further states that it is questionable whether a three-strikes law would be legal in the first place, as the UN’s Human Rights Council labeled Internet access a human right. The Council specifically argued that Hadopi is a disproportionate law that should be repealed. Other measures such as filtering or blocking content and websites are also rejected, because these would hurt freedom of speech and violate privacy protection laws. The report notes that even if these measures were implemented, there would be several ways to circumvent them. The overall suggestion the Swiss government communicates to the entertainment industries is that they should adapt to the change in consumer behavior, or die. They see absolutely no need to change the law because downloading has no proven negative impact on the production of national culture. Aside from downloading, it is also practically impossible for companies in Switzerland to go after casual uploaders. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that tracking companies are not allowed to log IP-addresses of file-sharers, making it impossible for rightsholders to gather evidence. http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jan 8 02:22:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:52:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal Message-ID: <4F094436.70909@itforchange.net> Important development, and clear justification for not expanding the IP legal infrastructure, especially in a manner that infringes basic human rights as being done by many other counties. ... parminder Swiss Govt: Downloading Movies and Music Will Stay Legal *One in three people in Switzerland download unauthorized music, movies and games from the Internet and since last year the government has been wondering what to do about it. This week their response was published and it was crystal clear. Not only will downloading for personal use stay completely legal, but the copyright holders won’t suffer because of it, since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products.* In Switzerland, just as in dozens of other countries, the entertainment industries have been complaining about dramatic losses in revenue due to online piracy. In a response, the Swiss government has been conducting a study into the impact downloading has on society, and this week their findings were presented . The overall conclusion of the study is that the current copyright law, under which downloading copyrighted material for personal use is permitted, doesn’t have to change. Their report begins with noting that when it comes to copying files, the Internet has proven a game-changer. While the photocopier, audio cassette tape and VCR allowed users to make good quality copies of various media, these devices lacked a in-built distribution method. The world-wide web changed all that. Distribution method or not, the entertainment industries have opposed all these technological inventions out of fear that their businesses would be crushed. This is not the right response according to the Swiss government, which favors the option of putting technology to good use instead of taking the repressive approach. “Every time a new media technology has been made available, it has always been ‘abused’. This is the price we pay for progress. Winners will be those who are able to use the new technology to their advantages and losers those who missed this development and continue to follow old business models,” the report notes. The government report further concludes that even in the current situation where piracy is rampant, the entertainment industries are not necessarily losing money. To reach this conclusion, the researchers extrapolated the findings of a study conducted by the Dutch government last year, since the countries are considered to be similar in many aspects. The report states that around a third of Swiss citizens over 15 years old download pirated music, movies and games from the Internet. However, these people don’t spend less money as a result because the budgets they reserve for entertainment are fairly constant. This means that downloading is mostly complementary. The other side of piracy, based on the Dutch study, is that downloaders are reported to be more frequent visitors to concerts, and game downloaders actually bought more games than those who didn’t. And in the music industry, lesser-know bands profit most from the sampling effect of file-sharing. The Swiss report then goes on to review several of the repressive anti-piracy laws and regulations that have been implemented in other countries recently, such as the three-strikes Hadopi law in France. According to the report 12 million was spent on Hadopi in France this year, a figure the Swiss deem too high. The report further states that it is questionable whether a three-strikes law would be legal in the first place, as the UN’s Human Rights Council labeled Internet access a human right. The Council specifically argued that Hadopi is a disproportionate law that should be repealed. Other measures such as filtering or blocking content and websites are also rejected, because these would hurt freedom of speech and violate privacy protection laws. The report notes that even if these measures were implemented, there would be several ways to circumvent them. The overall suggestion the Swiss government communicates to the entertainment industries is that they should adapt to the change in consumer behavior, or die. They see absolutely no need to change the law because downloading has no proven negative impact on the production of national culture. Aside from downloading, it is also practically impossible for companies in Switzerland to go after casual uploaders. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that tracking companies are not allowed to log IP-addresses of file-sharers, making it impossible for rightsholders to gather evidence. http://torrentfreak.com/swiss-govt-downloading-movies-and-music-will-stay-legal-111202/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jan 8 10:13:33 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:13:33 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Vint Cerf have been always alert to the public interest of the Internet. The new interplanetary technology. For those not familiar with the development, will bring lots of innovation in our field. I do agree with Vint Cerf in this regard: Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the HR. not an HR itself. To be one, several other discussions must be made, with a better rationale than universal access. All the best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 – conj. 1407 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Dissemine esta idéia www.criancamaissegura.com.br   -----Mensagem original----- De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Carlos A. Afonso Enviada em: quinta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2012 10:07 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Assunto: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and diversified space which represents this network of networks in its multiple instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just technology", as the very extensive debate on Internet governance going on since the WSIS process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as well that the right to communicate is a fundamental right. The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate executive decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams and delve into the communication rights debate? fraternal regards --c.a. ---------------- Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef ---------------- www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br On 01/05/2012 10:03 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-hum > an-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here > for those who may not be able to access it: > January 4, 2012 > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF > > Reston, Va. > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around > the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices > that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because > thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have > happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to > communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The > issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped > down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In > June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a > report by the United Nations’ special > rapporteur ations-report-internet-access-is-a-human-right.html> > went > so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable > tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, > courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have > pronounced Internet access a human right. > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: > technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a > high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it > must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, > meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. > It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted > category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For > example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a > living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a > living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like > freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are > not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular > time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed > as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the > Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil *right? > The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is > always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — > though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger > one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are > different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, > not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” > to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of > “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and > electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the > most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are > edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because > ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: > the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human > and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible > and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining > information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow > people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to > empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users > online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms > like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. > Technologists should work toward this end. > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and > standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and > Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new > capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology > and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by > which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an > appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — > without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at > the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice > president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 12:59:50 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:29:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Another interesting blog by Aldo Matteucci can be found at: http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/internet-access-as-human-right-mr-cerf-shoots-himself-in-the-foot/#comment-617with the title: "Does the technology tail wag the human rights dog?" What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. While this is a semantic argument, it is an important one that helps us define strategies and approaches as we search for solutions. Here is how I look at it. Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations", and a point he made earlier, “'Freedom of speech' is an abstract right. Its exercise necessarily relies on technologies..." is even more important. Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live. What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances) interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation. State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to apply their funds and energies as they see fit. We cannot decide for another whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue. What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited. Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. Cerf and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, undoubtedly, rely on technology. Although access to information will help solve other ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as clear cut as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make Internet access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the Finnish. But if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a higher priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about the hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we work towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our priorities. [1] New York Times, January 4, 2012; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=1 [2] UNDHR: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml On 8 January 2012 10:43, Vanda UOL wrote: > Vint Cerf have been always alert to the public interest of the Internet. > The > new interplanetary technology. For those not familiar with the development, > will bring lots of innovation in our field. I do agree with Vint Cerf in > this regard: Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the > HR. not an HR itself. To be one, several other discussions must be made, > with a better rationale than universal access. > All the best, > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Alameda Santos 1470 – conj. 1407 > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > Dissemine esta idéia > www.criancamaissegura.com.br > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome > de > Carlos A. Afonso > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 5 de janeiro de 2012 10:07 > Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Assunto: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not > a > HR > > Hmmm... strange indeed. Internet access is access to the huge and > diversified space which represents this network of networks in its multiple > instances, levels, layers etc. It is far from being "just technology", as > the very extensive debate on Internet governance going on since the WSIS > process exhaustively demonstrates -- not forgetting as well that the right > to communicate is a fundamental right. > > The question is not whether Dr Cerf is way off the mark here -- this is > trivial -- but why did this accomplished engineer and corporate executive > decide to descend from his "interplanetary Internet" dreams and delve into > the communication rights debate? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ---------------- > Carlos A. Afonso > Instituto Nupef > ---------------- > www.nupef.org.br > www.politics.org.br > > On 01/05/2012 10:03 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-hum > > an-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 > > > > Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here > > for those who may not be able to access it: > > January 4, 2012 > > Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF > > > > Reston, Va. > > > > FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around > > the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices > > that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because > > thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have > > happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to > > communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. > > > > It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about > > whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The > > issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped > > down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In > > June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a > > report by the United Nations’ special > > rapporteur > ations-report-internet-access-is-a-human-right.html> > > went > > so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable > > tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, > > courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have > > pronounced Internet access a human right. > > > > But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: > > technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a > > high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it > > must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, > > meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. > > It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted > > category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For > > example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a > > living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a > > living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to > have > a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. > > > > The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes > > that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like > > freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are > > not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular > > time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed > > as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the > > Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. > > > > What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a *civil > *right? > > The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is > > always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — > > though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger > > one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are > > different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, > > not intrinsic to us as human beings. > > > > While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” > > to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of > > “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and > > electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the > > most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are > > edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because > > ensuring access is a policy made by the government. > > > > Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: > > the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human > > and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible > > and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining > > information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow > > people to exercise their human and civil rights. > > > > In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to > > empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users > > online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms > > like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. > > Technologists should work toward this end. > > > > It is engineers — and our professional associations and > > standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and > > Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new > > capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology > > and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil > responsibilities > in addition to our engineering expertise. > > > > Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by > > which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an > > appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — > > without pretending that access itself is such a right. > > > > Vinton G. Cerf , a fellow at > > the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice > > president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > Diplo Foundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > > www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:36:23 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 17:36:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] WG on IGF improvements: 11-13 Jan Message-ID: Dear all, As you know, the next meeting of the Working group on IGF improvements will take place next week, 11 to 13 January. This meeting will be a little atypical, as there will be no financial support for civil society participation. We were officially told about this last month, a few days before holidays. Because of that, Anriette and I will not be able to physically participate this time. We will connect through remote participation tools. Parminder, Wolfgang and Izumi will attend the meeting representing civil society and they will read a statement that expresses our disagreement with this lack of support for CS participation. The chair has published a good and accurate summary of the last meeting: http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_WGIGF2011d14_summary_en.pdf We advanced on some important topics, such as MAG and outcomes, but we are still lagging behind on others, such as funding and the work of the Secretariat. In spite of the quality of the document, I felt the need to "taxonomically" organize the proposals. It helped me to have a more clear understanding of where we stand, so I decided to share these personal notes here. I have used the broad agreements as "headlines", and under them I have copied the related specific proposals, including those that were on separate text. The goal of the next meeting is to go into the real drafting of the report. Any comments or suggestions that can help us move forward on this delicate exercise will be more than welcome. Best wishes, Marília -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Categorization of proposals-Marília.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 146711 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 03:45:53 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:15:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Liability of Search Engines, ISPs and Social Networks towards USERS Message-ID: Hello I came across a forwarded post in the ISOC Public Policy list by a researcher who has been collecting resources on Search engine liability on defamation, copyright and Trade Mark. pear.ly/-eAL This makes me wonder if there is enough done by the users to BALANCE the offensives by the Copyright and Trade Mark Lobbies on ISPs and Search Engines. The conventional method of user's support would be to defend existing policies of serach engines and ISPs to preserve the network as a "stupid' network, without judgement on the traffic passing through. Wondering is there is a more effective way. What if Users adopt the same tactics, with a benevolent intent? What if Users mount an equally powerful, legitimate offensive on Search Engines, ISPs and Social Networks to assert that it is an offence by Search Engines, ISPs and Social Networks if they COMPROMISE on their knowledge of user's content and usage to favor the trademark and copyright lobby? Users do not wish to have search Engines, Social Networks and ISPs to breach their information flow. If this benevloent 'offensive' is mounted on the companies, it would sufficiently balance the trademark and copyright offensive. (This would actually make it easier for the companies to defend themseles) I wish to hear your reactions on this please. Thank you 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 08:00:57 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:00:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG on IGF improvements: 11-13 Jan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, Yes, I opt for the proposed Marilia. We can participate remotely. But it is not right to deprive civil society for financial support to participate in the consultation phase on Internet governance. I realize more clearly that the statement on WSIS and the Tunis Commitment are regularly flouted............. Baudouin 2012/1/8 Marilia Maciel > Dear all, > > As you know, the next meeting of the Working group on IGF improvements > will take place next week, 11 to 13 January. This meeting will be a little > atypical, as there will be no financial support for civil society > participation. We were officially told about this last month, a few days > before holidays. Because of that, Anriette and I will not be able to > physically participate this time. We will connect through remote > participation tools. Parminder, Wolfgang and Izumi will attend the meeting > representing civil society and they will read a statement that expresses > our disagreement with this lack of support for CS participation. > > The chair has published a good and accurate summary of the last meeting: > http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_WGIGF2011d14_summary_en.pdf > We advanced on some important topics, such as MAG and outcomes, but we are > still lagging behind on others, such as funding and the work of the > Secretariat. > > In spite of the quality of the document, I felt the need to > "taxonomically" organize the proposals. It helped me to have a more clear > understanding of where we stand, so I decided to share these personal notes > here. I have used the broad agreements as "headlines", and under them I > have copied the related specific proposals, including those that were on > separate text. > > The goal of the next meeting is to go into the real drafting of the > report. Any comments or suggestions that can help us move forward on this > delicate exercise will be more than welcome. > > Best wishes, > 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 09:58:20 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 09:58:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not > unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The > value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. [...] > > Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not > self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations", > [...] > The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not obligations" is a contradiction. Rights are obligations that governments *must respect*, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving anyone of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, even with due process, if the right is inalienable. For Mr. Matteucci to define rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire class of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration. > > Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of > inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live. > What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The > exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken > the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances) > interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be > supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation. > State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to *apply > their funds and energies as they see fit. *We cannot decide for another > whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their > application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue. > What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the > implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited. > Sovereign states may not apply their funds and energies "as they see fit" if they wish to practice genocide or other violations of human RIGHTS. > > Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. Cerf > and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, undoubtedly, > rely on technology. Although access to information will help solve other > ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as clear cut > as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make Internet > access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the Finnish. But > if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a higher > priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about the > hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we work > towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our > priorities. > There is a great confusion in this thread generally between the existence of a right and the practical means to carry it out. I have the right to speak politically but lack the funds to purchase television ads. This lack of funds reduces my power as a political speaker but does not mean I do not have a political speech right. The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time. For example, the existence of the right means that governments may not arbitrarily terminate access to the internet (when considered a right) because of race, sex, creed, color, religion or other arbitrary reasons. If access to the internet is a mere privilege (not a right), then the worst abuses of government that everyone on this list opposes are legally permissible, and all we can say against these abuses are relatively very weak policy and aspirational arguments that amount to saying "someday, when things are better, we hope this abuse won't happen any more." When something is a right, its practical exercise may not occur because of the personal *choice* of the right-holder, the personal *means* of the right-holder, or the *outside actions* of third parties such as government. When third parties like government deny the exercise of a right, then the persons affected have *a claim for VIOLATION of the right*-- a strong platform from which to fight -- as opposed to vague complaints based on mere aspirations. It's therefore quite important to be able to argue violation of a right as opposed to denial of one's aspirations. The FUNDING of the practical exercise of a right is usually, but not always, a severable or separate issue. This depends on whether the right is non-derogable or not. Certain rights are so fundamental that states must GUARANTEE them. (Right against genocide, for example) These guarantees include the funding necessary to guarantee the right, so states must expend, as a top priority, the funds necessary to prevent genocide. The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due process of law. IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as states may not suspend political speech related to elections by completely defunding or making media communications illegal. But does a government have to support the access of certain individual citizens with lesser means to access the internet for political speech-rights purposes? This depends on the existence of meaningful alternative means of exercising the right. IF it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights. Usually the nations that are in a position of having to make very difficult financial choices between things like water or infrastructure do NOT have electronic communications systems that are so pervasive that there are no meaningful alternatives to political speech via the internet, so as a practical matter this conflict is somewhat unlikely to arise. But still, it is quite important indeed to recognize that internet access for speech purposes is a right even if not everyone can afford it, and even if the government is not obliged to fund it because there are other ways to express the right of political speech in that particular situation. Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 10:44:21 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:44:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: *"IF it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights."* It's good to see someone with a legal education in the US argue this. I agree, Paul. To say something is a right doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that every single person, even those very well off from the financial perspective, must receive a service from the state for free. *"**The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the population."* I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from lack of food and water as it is in developed countries. Second, one should not push for the notion that if some companies have a profit to make due to the public spending in the realization of a human need, then states should 'fear' making such need a human or constitutional right. This would call countries to neglect health care because pharmaceutical companies make money, to deny a right to housing because contracting companies make money, to deny a right to water because companies in that market are profitable, to forbid a right to education as a result of the existence of large private education companies. In other words, it's a fallacy. *"**But, the real human rights behind access to internet already exist, and they are related to freedom of expression and freedom of diffusion, as well as right to dignity, equality, privacy, education and participation (among the most important). Access per se doesn’t make sense, because it is too easily confused and confined to technological hook-up (...)"* It's possible to find relationships among all rights: education with equality, freedom of expression with education, housing with right to life etc. This alone is not a reason to deny the recognition of a right. The reason a right to water is recognized in many constitutions despite the fact that a right to life is also made explicit is that even though people can't live without water, the two legal instruments don't cover the exact same situations and it has been found, in experience, that providing for these two rights in separate ensures a wider scope of protection. That is why I believe a right to Internet access is not irrelevant just because there's a right to freedom of expression. They don't cover the exact same things. One can try and insist shamelessly on fitting current social phenomena to older legal paradigms or one can accept that sometimes the legal paradigm has to be changed. Some people in this thread see the Internet as a mere technology. I honestly don't expect anyone who holds that POV to understand Internet access as a right - I wouldn't myself. But I believe, like some others here, that the Internet isn't simply *a* technology. Furthermore, with this in mind, it's not hard to see that a right to Internet access doesn't entail merely a technological hook-up but also aspects like information literacy. * "**Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the HR. not an HR itself."* I can certainly see where the fellow discussants here are coming from when they argue Internet is a tool and therefore not a human rights. I must reiterate, however, that a strong school of human rights and fundamental rights scholarship has argued that all rights are tools for allowing individuals to realize their human dignity or to pursue their own happiness. I don't see any human right as an end in itself. In my POV, people don't want their human rights protected as an end in itself, they want their human rights protected because of what this will enable them to achieve or maintain. To argue otherwise would be to say that states are the ones defining what people's goal in their lives is. I believe states help a person reach his or her own personally-defined life purpose: each and everyone here decides what their own dignity is and how and what they'll need to be live happily. Human rights are all tools in that context. Lastly, I must say (even though it's wrong to require people to gain knowledge about something before they're allowed to express their views on that subject) that I expected a person like Vinton Cerf (who I obviously admire greatly) to interest himself at least a little in the huge body of knowledge on human rights law that has been developed over several decades (as Matthias rightfully pointed out) before arguing something in a NYT op-ed. Cerf's declarations have a huge impact in international IG politics and with such influence comes some responsibility. His complete disregard for the conceptualization of human rights and civil rights has seriously impaired the discussion of his article and his views. Best, Ivar On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 09:58, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> >> What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not >> unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The >> value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. [...] >> >> Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not >> self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations", >> [...] >> > > The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not > obligations" is a contradiction. Rights are obligations that governments > *must respect*, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving > anyone of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, > even with due process, if the right is inalienable. For Mr. Matteucci to > define rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire > class of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration. > >> >> Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of >> inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live. >> What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The >> exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken >> the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances) >> interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be >> supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation. >> State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to *apply >> their funds and energies as they see fit. *We cannot decide for another >> whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their >> application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue. >> What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the >> implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited. >> > > Sovereign states may not apply their funds and energies "as they see fit" > if they wish to practice genocide or other violations of human RIGHTS. > >> >> Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. >> Cerf and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, >> undoubtedly, rely on technology. Although access to information will help >> solve other ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as >> clear cut as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make >> Internet access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the >> Finnish. But if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a >> higher priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about >> the hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we >> work towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our >> priorities. >> > > There is a great confusion in this thread generally between the existence > of a right and the practical means to carry it out. I have the right to > speak politically but lack the funds to purchase television ads. This lack > of funds reduces my power as a political speaker but does not mean I do not > have a political speech right. > > The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't > afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time. > For example, the existence of the right means that governments may not > arbitrarily terminate access to the internet (when considered a right) > because of race, sex, creed, color, religion or other arbitrary reasons. If > access to the internet is a mere privilege (not a right), then the worst > abuses of government that everyone on this list opposes are legally > permissible, and all we can say against these abuses are relatively very > weak policy and aspirational arguments that amount to saying "someday, when > things are better, we hope this abuse won't happen any more." > > When something is a right, its practical exercise may not occur because of > the personal *choice* of the right-holder, the personal *means* of the > right-holder, or the *outside actions* of third parties such as > government. When third parties like government deny the exercise of a > right, then the persons affected have *a claim for VIOLATION of the right*-- a strong platform from which to fight -- as opposed to vague complaints > based on mere aspirations. It's therefore quite important to be able to > argue violation of a right as opposed to denial of one's aspirations. > > The FUNDING of the practical exercise of a right is usually, but not > always, a severable or separate issue. This depends on whether the right > is non-derogable or not. Certain rights are so fundamental that states > must GUARANTEE them. (Right against genocide, for example) These > guarantees include the funding necessary to guarantee the right, so states > must expend, as a top priority, the funds necessary to prevent genocide. > > The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it > is a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due > process of law. IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as > states may not suspend political speech related to elections by completely > defunding or making media communications illegal. But does a government > have to support the access of certain individual citizens with lesser means > to access the internet for political speech-rights purposes? This depends > on the existence of meaningful alternative means of exercising the right. > IF it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially > impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods > of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take > the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights. > > Usually the nations that are in a position of having to make very > difficult financial choices between things like water or infrastructure do > NOT have electronic communications systems that are so pervasive that there > are no meaningful alternatives to political speech via the internet, so as > a practical matter this conflict is somewhat unlikely to arise. But still, > it is quite important indeed to recognize that internet access for speech > purposes is a right even if not everyone can afford it, and even if the > government is not obliged to fund it because there are other ways to > express the right of political speech in that particular situation. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > >> >> >> -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 10:46:28 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 11:46:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Describe the Emperor's clothes. Message-ID: A challenge for the New Year, and very best wishes to everyone for 2012 Deirdre Since before Christmas I have been considering a question, and persuading myself that it would be naïve to ask it. It’s an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ http://www.rickwalton.com/folktale/yellow04.htm type question. But the recent discussions of the article by Vint Cerf in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212, coupled with the document I have just been reading ‘UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT Third Meeting of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Geneva, Switzerland 31 October- 2 November 2011Chairman’s summary of the meeting (amended version on 7 December 2011’, which is available at http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_WGIGF2011d14_summary_en.pdf, suggest that the question needs to be asked. The discussion on the Cerf article made it clear that even when discussing things with one another we have serious semantic difficulties. In fact we seem to step into a Looking Glass world. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--- that's all." *Through the Looking Glass* - Lewis Carroll We, within the charmed circle, all take the great good of the Internet for granted. We seem to have left ‘what?’, ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ far behind us. We tunnel happily along under the ground and no one on the surface is listening, unless something to do with one of the tunnels collapses and a real person, looking into the real hole that has been created, realises that for example their real credit card has been used without their permission and there is a question of real funds that have gone really missing. We need to reconnect with the surface. The Internet is supposed to break down ‘silos’, but those of us discussing the Internet have created a huge silo – and we’re inside it. We need to break out. We need to stop taking things for granted. If we want to be inclusive, if we want to encourage participation, then we need to be able to say why so that other people can understand clearly what we are talking about. My question, my challenge if you like, is for the human benefits from the Internet to be described clearly, in accessible language, WITHOUT USING ACRONYMS AND JARGON. My personal preference would be to add a similarly accessible list of all the disadvantages as well to allow people to create their own informed opinions. -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 10:55:55 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:55:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > *"**The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the > pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband > infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by > the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of > precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital > needs for the population."* > I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. > For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom > rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and > realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to > implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to > implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of > rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and > access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from > lack of food and water as it is in developed countries. > In fact, information-deficits have been found to be the very cause of famine in Africa, specifically a lack of information as to where available resources can be found. Thus, failures of communication/speech can be both the cause and the cure of a deficit in an allegedly "more fundamental" right like food. Other examples could be given. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 14:38:55 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:08:55 -0430 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: <4F05927F.3040302@cafonso.ca> <00bd01ccce18$18679400$4936bc00$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: I am finding this discussion to be very interesting and illuminating. Thanks to everyone. gp Aldo Matteucci is not a member of the IGC, but he read Paul's comments, and had this response which I think is worth sharing with the list. (Aldo's latest Blog, "Are enabling technologies 'neutral'?" can be read at: http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/are-enabling-technologies-neutral/ ) Mr. Letho writes: *The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not obligations" is a contradiction. Rights are obligations that governments must respect, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving anyone of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, even with due process, if the right is inalienable. For Mr. Matteucci to define rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire class of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration.* The loose use of the term “right” is regrettable, but it is not my own doing. A good point of departure in understanding the quandary is the US DECLARATION of Independence, who also speaks of “inalienable rights” *“**We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*:” Now these “inalienable rights” were not enough to make slavery illegitimate in the country. It took a civil war, and AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution for this goal to be obtained. The UNHDR is what its name purports to be – a DECLARATION. Strictly speaking it has no legal standing in international law (and even less in national law), even though the term “right” is used therein. The declaratory character of the UNDHR is best understood in the context of its creation. In 1948 the West was pressing for a legal title to Art. 1-19 (personal rights), and the Soviets were doing the same for Art. 22-25 (economic rights). The compromise is what we have now. Conventions have been created under UNDHR, which have legal standing for the parties. Mr. LETHO goes on as follows: *“The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time.”* I have not raised this issue. Indeed economic capacity may be a practical prerequisite for exercising personal rights. This is why FDR proposed a “Second Bill of (Economic) Rights” in 1944 – to guarantee the economic basis for personal rights. He never got anywhere, and there is no "right" to a job despite it being a “right” under UNDHR. Finally Mr. LETHO writes: “*The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due process of law. IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as states may not suspend political speech related to elections by completely defunding or making media communications illegal.”* In the current context of international law, the source of rights is exclusively the sovereign state. It either accepts to be bound by an international treaty or convention to which he is a party, or he acts on his own volition. One may not claim an “inalienable right” in a national court on the basis of the UNDHR – not in Myanmar, China, nor the US. So the whole discussion over whether internet access is a “human right” of a “civil right” is pointless, and should be discontinued. It is a red herring, artily thrown into the discussion. For all practical purposes it is a “civil right” in the US and is covered by the First Amendment, just as is the press, radio, or TV. To even raise the issue that it might be excluded seems preposterous to me. Whether the specificities of the net require special regulations is a matter subordinate to the “civil right”. At the international level I’d refrain from hectoring recalcitrant governments with the statement that internet access is a “inalienable human right”. I rather speak softly – if nothing else because of our own hypocrisy. The UK was in the forefront of the drafting of the legally binding EuCHR. The first case brought under this convention was the treatment of prisoners by the British in Cyprus. They had to argue that the EuCHR did not apply to Britain’s colonies. Aldo Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 9 January 2012 11:25, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < > ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > >> *"**The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the >> pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband >> infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by >> the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of >> precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital >> needs for the population."* >> I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. >> For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom >> rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and >> realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to >> implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to >> implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of >> rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and >> access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from >> lack of food and water as it is in developed countries. >> > > In fact, information-deficits have been found to be the very cause of > famine in Africa, specifically a lack of information as to where available > resources can be found. Thus, failures of communication/speech can be both > the cause and the cure of a deficit in an allegedly "more fundamental" > right like food. Other examples could be given. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jan 9 15:40:41 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:40:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Our friends, the Indians In-Reply-To: <964753ca-8466-46b0-a9e9-c62be749bf76.maildroid@localhost> References: <825481041.522836.1326068469986.JavaMail.root@md03.insight.synacor.com>,<964753ca-8466-46b0-a9e9-c62be749bf76.maildroid@localhost> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B061D1F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> curiouser and curiouser ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [farber at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 7:30 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Our friends, the Indians -----Original Message----- From: Randall Webmail To: cyberia-l , dave at farber.net, Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 7:21 PM Subject: Our friends, the Indians Leaked memo suggests India sought backdoor access from mobile device firms to spy on U.S. By Muriel Kane Sunday, January 8, 2012 An internal memo from India's Military Intelligence that hackers have posted online suggests that manufacturers of mobile devices have provided "backdoor" access to the Indian government in exchange for access to the Indian market. The manufacturers, referred to collectively in the memo as "RINOA," include RIM, Nokia, and Apple. Indian blogger Manan Kakkar, who may have been the first to realize the implications of the memo, wrote late on Friday, "Earlier today I came across scans of a set of documents that are internal communications between the Indian Military. The documents claim the existence of a system known as RINOA SUR. While I did not find what SUR stands for but RINOA is RIM, NOkia and Apple. And this is where things start to get very interesting, according to the set of documents, the RINOA SUR platform was used to spy on the USCC—the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission." Scans of the memo can be viewed here. [SNIP] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/08/leaked-memo-suggests-india-sought-backdoor-access-from-mobile-device-firms-to-spy-on-u-s/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29 Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 9 17:30:48 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:30:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift Message-ID: The first third of this or so will be of interest, although familiar, to IGC colleagues...(the rest is a bit of sound and fury... M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 18:04:12 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 18:04:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: NYT Opinion by Vint Cerf on Human Rights & the Internet Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > The loose use of the term “right” is regrettable, but it is not my own > doing. A good point of departure in understanding the quandary is the US > DECLARATION of Independence, who also speaks of “inalienable rights” *“**We > hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that > they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*:” Now these > “inalienable rights” were not enough to make slavery illegitimate in the > country. It took a civil war, and AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution for > this goal to be obtained. > The above reflects an extremely common misunderstanding concerning rights. *The most important and fundamental rights are most often NOT in writing*in things like Constitutions, and w *hen they are they are not laid out in any significant detail *whatsoever because a Constitution is by nature a general statement of principles, and lacks even a section of definitions in nearly all cases. Free speech, for example is less than a single sentence in the US Constitution's first amendment. The *Constitution WAS intended to, and did, protect free speech BEFORE the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights was added* by amendment. In fact, many people opposed the Bill of Rights on the grounds that it would lead to either (1) confusion among the people that their rights were limited to those laid out in writing in the Constitution, or (2) judicial interpretations that presumed that if a right was not listed in writing, it did not exist. Both of these were considered by all to be a great danger, but those who passed the Bill of Rights did not think they would actually happen, and to try to make sure of that they added the 9th and 10th amendments, expressly reserving to the people and the states all other rights, thus clearly showing that *MORE rights exist than simply those formalized and enshrined* in the Constitution. For example, I know of no state or federal constitution that mentions the fundamental right of personal self-defense against violent attack. At least no state or federal US constitution contains a mention of this right but, like free speech before the First Amendment, self-defense has ALWAYS been held to be a fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL right that no government could pass a law to eliminate without acting unconstitutionally. *Then, just where does the right to self-defense come from??* One had best hope and pray that your most important and fundamental rights do NOT come from any sovereign government, because if they do, then you are really in big trouble the second anyone comes into power that doesn't like your exercise of your rights because they will simply declare the right to no longer exist. If the most important rights come from governments, then nobody's freedom is safe and what we loosely call rights are but mere privileges subject to governmental revocation at any time. Fundamental rights come from individual reason and conscience, and therefore they are *beyond the power of government to dispose of IN A FINAL WAY.* Governments can only VIOLATE rights -- and *they may do so for centuries* as with powerful vested interests/businesses like slaveholders in the USA. But even when violations of rights continue on for long periods of time it is still true that *Slavery was always wrong, and not right*, and slaves at all times had the right to be free. This is so because rights come from, to use the terms of the US Declaration of Independence, "NATURE and NATURE'S GOD" -- both of which are outside the power of any human institution to control. We can note that Jefferson chose language to create a "tent" that included atheists and agnostics (Nature) and theists (Nature's God)* in order to locate the wellspring of rights outside the power of government to control.* Mr. Matteucci, above, assumes that Jefferson's revolutionary instrument adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776 (the Decl. of Independence) is somehow the same, for purposes of a rights analysis, as the US Constitution of 1789's language protecting and grandfathering in the slave trade. In fact, there was a bit of counter-revolutionary action by slaveholding states to insist that the Declaration not be followed in respect to slavery, and they succeeded in getting that language into the US Constitution. But that constitutional language did not make something fundamentally wrong (slavery) perfectly OK on every level. As was argued then, and up to and through the US Civil War, every human being has an inalienable right to be free of things like slavery, and even Constitutions fall to a clear violation of inalienable rights. If an* individual *violates rights or the law, they *can be quickly brought to justice, and our ideas of rights are not challenged*. But when *governments or large powers* violate rights or the law, *justice can move at a glacial pace* - usually decades, and occasionally centuries. BUT IT DOES MOVE. Sometimes the "police force" necessary to "arrest" the law violators in the case of governments or large powers amounts to nonviolent or even military armies (as in the US Civil War). When justice is moving at the above very slow pace because governments or large business interests are violating fundamental human rights, *it is all too easy to confuse the VIOLATION of a right with the NON-existence of the right*. This is the common confusion I submit is reflected in Mr. Matteucci's response, but the distinction between the two is extremely important indeed for the following reasons: 1. Every major figure I know of that is important in establishing freedom and democracy agrees with Jefferson's approach that the wellspring of rights is outside the power of government to LEGITIMATELY tamper with - they can only violate those fundamental rights by pretending to repeal them. To show the breadth of agreement I'll cite Margaret Thatcher, talking about both the rule of law and the wellsprings of rights: "Our abiding commitment to the rule of law is the very bedrock of our > civilization. It is what makes all else possible, from the flowering of the > arts to the steady advance of the sciences. The idea that *men must > govern themselves *not by the arbitrary commands of a ruler but *by their > own considered judgment,* *is the means whereby chaos is replaced by > order.* Balanced by the peaceful resolution of differences, the rule of > law and the institutions of representative democracy are what stand between > civilization and barbarism. It is through law-governed liberty that mankind > has been able to achieve so much." > Indeed, the "rule of law" in free societies is fully consistent with human rights, which fundamentally and foundationally create, in the individual, an equal and individual locus of power. In 1776, for the first time in history, individuals were declared to be, in a sense, sovereign individual locuses (loci) of power worthy of respect and dignity, consisting of rights given by God or by Nature that are equal to those given to all other humans. Consistent with this, Maggie Thatcher (above) summarizes free government and notes that the considered individual judgement of each person is a critical element in replacing chaos with order based on the rule of law. The "rule of law" WITHOUT each person as an independent source of rights and power is the system of dictatorship - *dictators live by laws*, *which laws are nothing other than force itself*, but dictators don't respect human rights, and thus they become TOTAL-itarian based on their view of government power without limits. Now, if sovereign states, as is suggested by Mr. Matteucci, are the only sources of law, then slavery was perfectly OK and there were NO GROUNDS in justice to change or amend the Constitution. Genocide is just fine, so long as some government votes for it. The right of self-defense can be removed from all or from certain individuals by a mere act of regular legislation, making it murder for you to defend yourself against a violent attack. Is this right? Of course, not. Now I freely admit that governments or other powerful actors may appear to get away with rights violations, perhaps for a very long time, but it will NEVER make their actions right or just. Referring to one of the oldest kings mentioned in the Bible, an American patriot wrote: "*Even if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not establish a right to tyrannize*." This is because rights (and wrongs) emanate from Nature and the human conscience, not government acts. Finally, even if some NON-fundamental right is in fact, or is assumed to be, NOT in existence, *what is the first step to gaining proper governmental recognition of such a right? That first step is to CLAIM THE RIGHT EXISTS. * Thus, right now people in the USA advocate for court recognition of the RIGHT to GAY MARRIAGE. They are saying that the right exists RIGHT NOW, everywhere, but are asking for the governmental courts to recognize this right by court ruling *so that the right may be properly enforced* and recognized. Because the first step in getting a new right is *to assert that it exists*(in conscience, and in justice, etc.), then with regard to *fundamental *human rights it is always wrong to say things like "I support the Right XYZ, but unfortunately it does not exist because governments haven't agreed to it or are not in fact respecting Right XYZ, so no such right exists." The violation of a right does not prove the right's nonexistence. LIke ALL VALUABLE things, rights are subject to being stolen. The fact that property is stolen for years or decades or centuries never vests proper title in the thief or even in those who later possess it. It applies with even greater force to people than to property, the fact that fundamental human rights are violated or not respected by governments doesn't mean that the government is within rights and justice to enslave people, commit genocide, or deny freedom of speech. Perhaps the most fundamental ethical obligation is to call the good the good and the bad the bad. With regard to fundamental human rights, our conscience is the only appropriate guide. Bowing to government acts that abuse human rights is SERVILE. Governments commit crimes too!! Big ones, in fact. When those crimes consistent of violations of human rights, we should not give cover to those crimes by thinking or saying that the rights do or do not exist on account of anything that governments say or do. Fundamental rights *are not granted* by governments, they are only GUARANTEED by them (thus, some of these rights are mentioned in the written consitution for purposes of such guarantees). As applied to the Internet, the fundamental right of free speech and communication is encountering the newish "technology" of the internet. Now, the fundamental right of self-defense against violent attack might be exercised with the "technology" of gloves, clubs, or guns. Self-defense has been recognized since the days of cave men. Now, can someone argue that the right of self-defense does not extend to the "technology" of clubs or of modern guns -- when nearly everyone else one might encounter has a club or a gun? Or does the right "expand" so to speak along with the technological changes that are adopted on a widespread basis? I think nearly all would agree that the right "expands" to the technology - or rather that the very same right may be exercised in the new technology as well. Thus, the status of the internet as "technology" is not really a dispositive distinction. We should look to whether or not most everyone else has or desires access to clubs, guns, or the internet in order to exercise a fundamental right of speech or self defense, and note that if a society chooses to have gun control for all, then the right of self-defense won't include that particular technology, because it's not widespread enough. Declarations like the UNHDR are legal instruments: A declaration of war is surely a legally binding act, and a "declaration" in courts in the US is equivalent to an affidavit. One "declares" things that ALREADY EXIST independently. The mistake is to think that the form of a "declaration" means that the right does not exist at law. That's incorrect. By keeping in mind the source of fundamental rights, when rights are violated, we recognize the violations as being such, and have a strong platform to argue from: Our Rights have been Violated. If we believe that only state action creates rights, then we are perpetually at the mercy of government, and when they violate our rights, we have no cause of action for justice, either in the courts, nor an ethical cause for revolution, even. We are utterly at the mercy of tyranny unless we believe that our rights are quite independent of whether governments in their corruption choose to respect them or not. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS Customary (non-written) international law is quite abundant, and it is not ratified by any kind of treaty. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law > The UNHDR is what its name purports to be – a DECLARATION. Strictly > speaking it has no legal standing in international law (and even less in > national law), even though the term “right” is used therein. The > declaratory character of the UNDHR is best understood in the context of its > creation. In 1948 the West was pressing for a legal title to Art. 1-19 > (personal rights), and the Soviets were doing the same for Art. 22-25 > (economic rights). The compromise is what we have now. > > Conventions have been created under UNDHR, which have legal standing for > the parties. > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 19:23:37 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:23:37 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Azerbaijan wants to register mobile phones Message-ID: In the context of Azerbaijan hosting the next meeting of the IGF this may be of interest. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Katy Pearce ucsb Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:29 AM To: liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] Azerbaijan wants to register mobile phones http://blog.novruzov.az/2012/01/azerbaijan-to-register-all-mobile.html Blogger (and friend) Ali Zovruzov has translated a new law in Azerbaijan where all mobile phones will be registered to the government and the government will have the potential to shut off mobile communication. The measure bypassed the parliament and was approved directly by the Council of Ministers (which is sort of like the president's cabinet). On his blog some commenters don't think that this is a big deal, but... For some Azerbaijan context - it has been becoming more authoritarian and using technology to aid that: http://caucasusedition.net/analysis/%E2%80%9Cthis-is-what-can-happen-to-you% E2%80%9D-networked-authoritarianism-and-the-demonization-of-social-media-in- the-republic-of-azerbaijan/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 9 20:16:42 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:16:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] Whooops Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift Message-ID: <9B588A3D8B554D509C25D65E88D88109@UserVAIO> whoops... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuAj2F54bdo M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:31 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift The first third of this or so will be of interest, although familiar, to IGC colleagues...(the rest is a bit of sound and fury... M -------------- 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 aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 05:54:39 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:54:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] NYT Opinion by Vint Cerf on Human Rights & the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Paul, I'm afraid I have not the time to discuss all details of your overlong mail. Nor do I deem it necessary, for as I said, I consider the whole issue a red herring. Freedom of speech fully covers the personal rights on the net, just as it does any other support. To get lost in the byzantine discussion on the nature of human rights favours those who argue that there is a legal void concerning the net, when there is none. My position does not hinge on whether human rights are transcendent and eternal or not (I'd say they are emergent legitimate aspirations), rather whether they are judiciable or not. This is the only matter that counts pragmatically. (No slave in the US for 100 years could go to court and get himself declared a "free man" - and even the Northern States had to return runaway property (though in specific cases they may have found a way out). We square off on one of the oldest controversies of constitutional law, and I'm sure neither of us has the conpetence not time to resolve it. There are those who believe in "natural law" as the source of judiciable rights and those who believe in "compact of the people". Confucius and the Chinese legalists argued over that, and the Noatic Laws were invented to cover the period between Eden and the Ten Commandments. The bridge between the two positions is "customary international law", as cited in the wikipedia entry: Customary international law "... consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." [1] It follows that customary international law can be discerned by a "widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice); Acts must occur out of sense of obligation( *opinio juris *); Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States."[*citation needed *] A marker of customary international law is consensusamong states exhibited both by widespread conduct and a discernible sense of obligation. The International Court of Justice (case of USA vs Nicaragua in 1989) held that the elements of an international customary law would be *Opinio Yuris*(Past Judge Decisions or works of the most highly qualified publicists) which is then proven by existing state practices. A peremptory norm (also called *jus cogens*, Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international communityof states as a norm from which no derogationis ever permitted. Examples include various international crimes ; a state which carries out or permits slavery , torture , genocide, war of aggression , or crimes against humanity is always violating customary international law. Please note the terms "significant number of states", "consensus", "state practice" and "accepted by the international community" - these are precisely the pointers that make "human rights" closer to emergent aspirations that judiciable rights. Customary international law hardly had the time to emerge in our case, where the matter is 20 year old. Your quote of Mrs. Thatcher is closer to my own position than yours: " Our abiding commitment to the rule of law is the very bedrock of our civilization. It is what makes all else possible, from the flowering of the arts to the steady advance of the sciences. The idea that *men must govern themselves *not by the arbitrary commands of a ruler but *by their own considered judgment,* *is the means whereby chaos is replaced by order.".=> *If we are to govern ourselves, then we have to set out the rules by which we do so, and we cannot just go to a shelf to consult a secular Ten Commandments, which is revealed to you, but is possibly not "self-evident" to me. From long experience I'm wary of any assumption that human rights are transcendent - too close to theology for my comfort. [This is akin to the discussion between Aristoteles and Plato as to the reality of the "idea" - where Plato argued that the idea of the wheel is eternal and unchanging and pre-existed its invention. Aristoteles kindly asked as to whether the idea of certain body ejects was "eternal"] [Karl Popper has argued at length about the "paradox of tolerance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper. This matter cannot be resolved logically, for it involves a vicious paradox and self-referential statements (see Agamben on the right of exception). ] Economy of means remains a principle of law, and I'd tend to argue along economical lines that issues of free speech on the net is no different from paper or radio or TV, and thus already judiciable - subject to the proviso that there are not specificities requiring additional legal norms. I would not go for the revelation of a transcendent right. Whether I'd go with the idea of a transcendent right to proselytize among the pagans, i.e. those states that are already deliquent in the general area of personal rights - is for me foremost a matter of considered judgement (including consistency). Aldo Aldo On 10 January 2012 00:04, Paul Lehto wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > >> The loose use of the term “right” is regrettable, but it is not my own >> doing. A good point of departure in understanding the quandary is the US >> DECLARATION of Independence, who also speaks of “inalienable rights” *“**We >> hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that >> they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that >> among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*:” Now these >> “inalienable rights” were not enough to make slavery illegitimate in the >> country. It took a civil war, and AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution for >> this goal to be obtained. >> > > The above reflects an extremely common misunderstanding concerning > rights. *The most important and fundamental rights are most often NOT in > writing* in things like Constitutions, and w*hen they are they are not > laid out in any significant detail *whatsoever because a Constitution is > by nature a general statement of principles, and lacks even a section of > definitions in nearly all cases. Free speech, for example is less than a > single sentence in the US Constitution's first amendment. The *Constitution > WAS intended to, and did, protect free speech BEFORE the first ten > amendments called the Bill of Rights was added* by amendment. > > In fact, many people opposed the Bill of Rights on the grounds that it > would lead to either (1) confusion among the people that their rights were > limited to those laid out in writing in the Constitution, or (2) judicial > interpretations that presumed that if a right was not listed in writing, it > did not exist. Both of these were considered by all to be a great danger, > but those who passed the Bill of Rights did not think they would actually > happen, and to try to make sure of that they added the 9th and 10th > amendments, expressly reserving to the people and the states all other > rights, thus clearly showing that *MORE rights exist than simply those > formalized and enshrined* in the Constitution. > > For example, I know of no state or federal constitution that mentions the > fundamental right of personal self-defense against violent attack. At > least no state or federal US constitution contains a mention of this right > but, like free speech before the First Amendment, self-defense has ALWAYS > been held to be a fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL right that no government could > pass a law to eliminate without acting unconstitutionally. > > *Then, just where does the right to self-defense come from??* > > One had best hope and pray that your most important and fundamental rights > do NOT come from any sovereign government, because if they do, then you are > really in big trouble the second anyone comes into power that doesn't like > your exercise of your rights because they will simply declare the right to > no longer exist. If the most important rights come from governments, then > nobody's freedom is safe and what we loosely call rights are but mere > privileges subject to governmental revocation at any time. > > Fundamental rights come from individual reason and conscience, and > therefore they are *beyond the power of government to dispose of IN A > FINAL WAY.* Governments can only VIOLATE rights -- and *they may do so > for centuries* as with powerful vested interests/businesses like > slaveholders in the USA. But even when violations of rights continue on > for long periods of time it is still true that *Slavery was always wrong, > and not right*, and slaves at all times had the right to be free. This > is so because rights come from, to use the terms of the US Declaration of > Independence, "NATURE and NATURE'S GOD" -- both of which are outside the > power of any human institution to control. We can note that Jefferson > chose language to create a "tent" that included atheists and agnostics > (Nature) and theists (Nature's God)* in order to locate the wellspring of > rights outside the power of government to control.* > > Mr. Matteucci, above, assumes that Jefferson's revolutionary instrument > adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776 (the Decl. of Independence)If an > * individual *violates rights or the law, they *can be quickly brought to > justice, and our ideas of rights are not challenged*. is somehow the > same, for purposes of a rights analysis, as the US Constitution of 1789's > language protecting and grandfathering in the slave trade. In fact, there > was a bit of counter-revolutionary action by slaveholding states to insist > that the Declaration not be followed in respect to slavery, and they > succeeded in getting that language into the US Constitution. But that > constitutional language did not make something fundamentally wrong > (slavery) perfectly OK on every level. As was argued then, and up to and > through the US Civil War, every human being has an inalienable right to be > free of things like slavery, and even Constitutions fall to a clear > violation of inalienable rights. > > > > But when *governments or large powers* violate rights or the law, *justice > can move at a glacial pace* - usually decades, and occasionally > centuries. BUT IT DOES MOVE. Sometimes the "police force" necessary to > "arrest" the law violators in the case of governments or large powers > amounts to nonviolent or even military armies (as in the US Civil War). > > When justice is moving at the above very slow pace because governments or > large business interests are violating fundamental human rights, *it is > all too easy to confuse the VIOLATION of a right with the NON-existence of > the right*. This is the common confusion I submit is reflected in Mr. > Matteucci's response, but the distinction between the two is extremely > important indeed for the following reasons: > > 1. Every major figure I know of that is important in establishing freedom > and democracy agrees with Jefferson's approach that the wellspring of > rights is outside the power of government to LEGITIMATELY tamper with - > they can only violate those fundamental rights by pretending to repeal > them. To show the breadth of agreement I'll cite Margaret Thatcher, > talking about both the rule of law and the wellsprings of rights: > > "Our abiding commitment to the rule of law is the very bedrock of our >> civilization. It is what makes all else possible, from the flowering of the >> arts to the steady advance of the sciences. The idea that *men must >> govern themselves *not by the arbitrary commands of a ruler but *by >> their own considered judgment,* *is the means whereby chaos is replaced >> by order.* Balanced by the peaceful resolution of differences, the rule >> of law and the institutions of representative democracy are what stand >> between civilization and barbarism. It is through law-governed liberty that >> mankind has been able to achieve so much." >> > > Indeed, the "rule of law" in free societies is fully consistent with human > rights, which fundamentally and foundationally create, in the individual, > an equal and individual locus of power. In 1776, for the first time in > history, individuals were declared to be, in a sense, sovereign individual > locuses (loci) of power worthy of respect and dignity, consisting of rights > given by God or by Nature that are equal to those given to all other > humans. Consistent with this, Maggie Thatcher (above) summarizes free > government and notes that the considered individual judgement of each > person is a critical element in replacing chaos with order based on the > rule of law. The "rule of law" WITHOUT each person as an independent > source of rights and power is the system of dictatorship - *dictators > live by laws*, *which laws are nothing other than force itself*, but > dictators don't respect human rights, and thus they become TOTAL-itarian > based on their view of government power without limits. > > Now, if sovereign states, as is suggested by Mr. Matteucci, are the only > sources of law, then slavery was perfectly OK and there were NO GROUNDS in > justice to change or amend the Constitution. Genocide is just fine, so > long as some government votes for it. The right of self-defense can be > removed from all or from certain individuals by a mere act of regular > legislation, making it murder for you to defend yourself against a violent > attack. Is this right? Of course, not. > > Now I freely admit that governments or other powerful actors may appear to > get away with rights violations, perhaps for a very long time, but it will > NEVER make their actions right or just. > > Referring to one of the oldest kings mentioned in the Bible, an American > patriot wrote: > > "*Even if every prince since Nimrod had been a tyrant, it would not > establish a right to tyrannize*." This is because rights (and wrongs) > emanate from Nature and the human conscience, not government acts. > > Finally, even if some NON-fundamental right is in fact, or is assumed to > be, NOT in existence, *what is the first step to gaining proper > governmental recognition of such a right? > > That first step is to CLAIM THE RIGHT EXISTS. * Thus, right now people in > the USA advocate for court recognition of the RIGHT to GAY MARRIAGE. They > are saying that the right exists RIGHT NOW, everywhere, but are asking for > the governmental courts to recognize this right by court ruling *so that > the right may be properly enforced* and recognized. > > Because the first step in getting a new right is *to assert that it exists > * (in conscience, and in justice, etc.), then with regard to *fundamental > *human rights it is always wrong to say things like "I support the Right > XYZ, but unfortunately it does not exist because governments haven't agreed > to it or are not in fact respecting Right XYZ, so no such right exists." > > The violation of a right does not prove the right's nonexistence. LIke > ALL VALUABLE things, rights are subject to being stolen. The fact that > property is stolen for years or decades or centuries never vests proper > title in the thief or even in those who later possess it. It applies with > even greater force to people than to property, the fact that fundamental > human rights are violated or not respected by governments doesn't mean that > the government is within rights and justice to enslave people, commit > genocide, or deny freedom of speech. > > Perhaps the most fundamental ethical obligation is to call the good the > good and the bad the bad. With regard to fundamental human rights, our > conscience is the only appropriate guide. Bowing to government acts that > abuse human rights is SERVILE. Governments commit crimes too!! Big ones, > in fact. When those crimes consistent of violations of human rights, we > should not give cover to those crimes by thinking or saying that the rights > do or do not exist on account of anything that governments say or do. > > Fundamental rights *are not granted* by governments, they are only > GUARANTEED by them (thus, some of these rights are mentioned in the written > consitution for purposes of such guarantees). > > As applied to the Internet, the fundamental right of free speech and > communication is encountering the newish "technology" of the internet. > Now, the fundamental right of self-defense against violent attack might be > exercised with the "technology" of gloves, clubs, or guns. Self-defense > has been recognized since the days of cave men. Now, can someone argue > that the right of self-defense does not extend to the "technology" of clubs > or of modern guns -- when nearly everyone else one might encounter has a > club or a gun? Or does the right "expand" so to speak along with the > technological changes that are adopted on a widespread basis? I think > nearly all would agree that the right "expands" to the technology - or > rather that the very same right may be exercised in the new technology as > well. Thus, the status of the internet as "technology" is not really a > dispositive distinction. We should look to whether or not most everyone > else has or desires access to clubs, guns, or the internet in order to > exercise a fundamental right of speech or self defense, and note that if a > society chooses to have gun control for all, then the right of self-defense > won't include that particular technology, because it's not widespread > enough. > > Declarations like the UNHDR are legal instruments: A declaration of war is > surely a legally binding act, and a "declaration" in courts in the US is > equivalent to an affidavit. One "declares" things that ALREADY EXIST > independently. The mistake is to think that the form of a "declaration" > means that the right does not exist at law. That's incorrect. > > By keeping in mind the source of fundamental rights, when rights are > violated, we recognize the violations as being such, and have a strong > platform to argue from: Our Rights have been Violated. If we believe that > only state action creates rights, then we are perpetually at the mercy of > government, and when they violate our rights, we have no cause of action > for justice, either in the courts, nor an ethical cause for revolution, > even. We are utterly at the mercy of tyranny unless we believe that our > rights are quite independent of whether governments in their corruption > choose to respect them or not. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > PS Customary (non-written) international law is quite abundant, and it is > not ratified by any kind of treaty. See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law > > > > > > >> The UNHDR is what its name purports to be – a DECLARATION. Strictly >> speaking it has no legal standing in international law (and even less in >> national law), even though the term “right” is used therein. The >> declaratory character of the UNDHR is best understood in the context of its >> creation. In 1948 the West was pressing for a legal title to Art. 1-19 >> (personal rights), and the Soviets were doing the same for Art. 22-25 >> (economic rights). The compromise is what we have now. >> >> Conventions have been created under UNDHR, which have legal standing for >> the parties. >> >> -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 05:58:00 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:58:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Right to self-defence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Paul, I have not dealt with your "right of self-defence" line in my reply to your post, because the argument, as formulated, is not germane to the core issue - hence this separate post: - the right to self-defence against a private attack was covered by common law as taken on lock stock and barrel by the states at the moment of independence. It is, to my knowledge part of the state penal code, not a federal right. - the US Bill of Rights exclusively deals with the rights of the citizens in respect of the state, so the right of self-defence against a private person would not apply, unless the context is specific (e.g. biases of state juries, which denied the citizen protection under the law). - In a "citizen-vs.-state" context the "right of self-defence" may be interpreted to be "right of secession". What American patriots did in 1776 was to secede from the British Kingdom (they called it "declare independence"). They won their independence in the battlefield (and thanks to Spanish money, arms, and military action). The Civil War was fought "to defend the union", hence over the secession issue (as well as slavery), and the right to secession denied, in the battlefield. Wilson took "no secession" to Versailles in 1918, married it to the "right of self-determination" and got us all in the mess we lived through in WWII. And still do today, as Jovan and the history of the Balkans can attest. I'll leave it to you to mull over the question whether there is a self-evident "natural or human right" to secession. Some issues just can't be decided in principle, and are best left to circumstances 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 08:03:19 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:03:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] So much for IBSA - Hacked memo leaked: Apple, Nokia, RIM supply backdoors for gov't intercept? Message-ID: Hacked memo leaked: Apple, Nokia, RIM supply backdoors for gov't intercept? http://blogs.computerworld.com/19531/hacked_memo_leaked_apple_nokia_rim_supply_backdoors_for_govt_intercept -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 10 08:08:09 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:08:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Message-ID: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> Dear Ivar and members of the list > "The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the population." > I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. Since you are quoting an extract of my mail, let me add a short comment on the reasons that inspired this sentence. It is not the principle of ICT/telecom infrastructure to be available and services to be used ... and paid for by people in DCs. This could even be a "right" :-) for some equality with rich countries and people living there. What I wanted to stress in my phrase is the huge amount of the COST for this to happen. And more particularly the extra investments paid for overlapping and duplicating infrastructure as well as redundent networks. Just two examples to illustrates this : Example 1 : in 2012 there are 6 submarine cable systems along the West African coast (a seventh is planned and three others are envisaged). Half of the six would be largely sufficient in terms of traffic (even for the ten coming years), redundance and even competition. Extra cost generated by this situation : 1,6 billion dollars (only CAPEX). Example 2 : Kenya has 7 terrestrial networks the half of which carrying just a symbolic traffic. Three networks would largely satisfy the domestic needs for the ten years ahead. Extra cost is about 30 million (only CAPEX). Another example : In African countries the mean number of mobile operators is between 4 to 8. In industriallized countries this figure is betwenn 2 and 4. Unless to say that here are huge amounts of resources spent for "ideological" reasons (competition, free market rule ...). All this cost (plus the OPEX, plus the gifts to the shareholders) must be paid for : that is the reason why African mobile users must afford 50 billion dollars per year (and this amount is strongly growing!). That is what I find particularly unworthy for people living in DCs and for the countries themselves. They have more basic needs that I mentioned in my mail (access to water and sanitation, access to electricity, to education, to health, to food) and therefore as many "rights" to question such a "cable glut", systematically welcomed by the "international constituencies", first of all the ITU ! IMHO this it is also the duty of CS to stress such misappropriation of financial resources that generate ten thousands of deaths among people in DCs. FYI : the budget of FAO is equal to the cost of the useless surplus of submarine cables mentioned above. best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France > Message du 09/01/12 16:45 > De : "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Paul Lehto" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > "IF it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights." > > It's good to see someone with a legal education in the US argue this. I agree, Paul. To say something is a right doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that every single person, even those very well off from the financial perspective, must receive a service from the state for free. > > "The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital needs for the population." > I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. > For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from lack of food and water as it is in developed countries. > Second, one should not push for the notion that if some companies have a profit to make due to the public spending in the realization of a human need, then states should 'fear' making such need a human or constitutional right. This would call countries to neglect health care because pharmaceutical companies make money, to deny a right to housing because contracting companies make money, to deny a right to water because companies in that market are profitable, to forbid a right to education as a result of the existence of large private education companies. In other words, it's a fallacy. > > "But, the real human rights behind access to internet already exist, and they are related to freedom of expression and freedom of diffusion, as well as right to dignity, equality, privacy,  education and participation (among the most important). Access per se doesn’t make sense, because it is too easily confused and confined  to technological hook-up (...)" > > It's possible to find relationships among all rights: education with equality, freedom of expression with education, housing with right to life etc. This alone is not a reason to deny the recognition of a right. The reason a right to water is recognized in many constitutions despite the fact that a right to life is also made explicit is that even though people can't live without water, the two legal instruments don't cover the exact same situations and it has been found, in experience, that providing for these two rights in separate ensures a wider scope of protection. That is why I believe a right to Internet access is not irrelevant just because there's a right to freedom of expression. They don't cover the exact same things. One can try and insist shamelessly on fitting current social phenomena to older legal paradigms or one can accept that sometimes the legal paradigm has to be changed. > Some people in this thread see the Internet as a mere technology. I honestly don't expect anyone who holds that POV to understand Internet access as a right - I wouldn't myself. But I believe, like some others here, that the Internet isn't simply a technology. Furthermore, with this in mind, it's not hard to see that a right to Internet access doesn't entail merely a technological hook-up but also aspects like information literacy. > >  "Internet is the best tool for democracy and guarantee of the > HR. not an HR itself." > > I can certainly see where the fellow discussants here are coming from when they argue Internet is a tool and therefore not a human rights. I must reiterate, however, that a strong school of human rights and fundamental rights scholarship has argued that all rights are tools for allowing individuals to realize their human dignity or to pursue their own happiness. I don't see any human right as an end in itself. In my POV, people don't want their human rights protected as an end in itself, they want their human rights protected because of what this will enable them to achieve or maintain. To argue otherwise would be to say that states are the ones defining what people's goal in their lives is. I believe states help a person reach his or her own personally-defined life purpose: each and everyone here decides what their own dignity is and how and what they'll need to be live happily. Human rights are all tools in that context. > > Lastly, I must say (even though it's wrong to require people to gain knowledge about something before they're allowed to express their views on that subject) that I expected a person like Vinton Cerf (who I obviously admire greatly) to interest himself at least a little in the huge body of knowledge on human rights law that has been developed over several decades (as Matthias rightfully pointed out) before arguing something in a NYT op-ed. Cerf's declarations have a huge impact in international IG politics and with such influence comes some responsibility. His complete disregard for the conceptualization of human rights and civil rights has seriously impaired the discussion of his article and his views. > > Best, > Ivar    > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 09:58, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >   What Mr. Cerf said ("Internet access is not a human right" [1]) is not unusual; it is something many of us discuss, even (horrors) agree with. The value of his editorial is in the debate it has catalyzed. [...] > Mr. Matteucci makes an excellent point that “'Human rights' are not self-executing: they represent legitimate aspirations – not obligations", [...]   > The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not obligations" is a contradiction.  Rights are obligations that governments must respect, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving anyone of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, even with due process, if the right is inalienable.   For Mr. Matteucci to define rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire class of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration. >     > Under the UN Declaration on Human Rights[2] (UNDHR), we all have a set of inalienable human rights, no matter who we are, no matter where we live. What we may or may not have is the ability to exercise these rights. The exercise of these rights may be legally interrupted because we have broken the law. They may be illegally (or legally in exceptional circumstances) interrupted by government action or decree. Or their exercise may be supported or hindered by selective legal and/or practical implementation. State sovereignty allows each country to establish its own triage to apply their funds and energies as they see fit. We cannot decide for another whether water, food or information are their highest priorities, so their application or practical administration must be a local or regional issue. What the UN and others can do is (attempt to) ensure that the the implementation (exercise) of human rights is not prohibited.     > Sovereign states may not apply their funds and energies "as they see fit" if they wish to practice genocide or other violations of human RIGHTS.  >     > Our rights are protected under the UNDHR. Their exercise, as both Mr. Cerf and Mr. Matteucci agree, often, and in the case of Internet, undoubtedly, rely on technology. Although access to information will help solve other ills, the triage priority assigned to Internet access is not as clear cut as 'breathing, bleeding, beating'. If Finland can manage to make Internet access a legal right, congratulations, and more power to the Finnish.  But if another country must make safe water, food and medicine a higher priority, I can understand that. I think we must be concerned about the hindrance or prohibition of the exercise of any human rights, as we work towards the local implementation, in the way we each have set our priorities.     > There is a great confusion in this thread generally between the existence of a right and the practical means to carry it out.  I have the right to speak politically but lack the funds to purchase television ads.  This lack of funds reduces my power as a political speaker but does not mean I do not have a political speech right. > > The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time.  For example, the existence of the right means that governments may not arbitrarily terminate access to the internet (when considered a right) because of race, sex, creed, color, religion or other arbitrary reasons. If access to the internet is a mere privilege (not a right), then the worst abuses of government that everyone on this list opposes are legally permissible, and all we can say against these abuses are relatively very weak policy and aspirational arguments that amount to saying "someday, when things are better, we hope this abuse won't happen any more." > > When something is a right, its practical exercise may not occur because of the personal choice of the right-holder, the personal means of the right-holder, or the outside actions of third parties such as government.  When third parties like government deny the exercise of a right, then the persons affected have a claim for VIOLATION of the right -- a strong platform from which to fight -- as opposed to vague complaints based on mere aspirations.  It's therefore quite important to be able to argue violation of a right as opposed to denial of one's aspirations.  > > The FUNDING of the practical exercise of a right is usually, but not always, a severable or separate issue.  This depends on whether the right is non-derogable or not.  Certain rights are so fundamental that states must GUARANTEE them.  (Right against genocide, for example)   These guarantees include the funding necessary to guarantee the right, so states must expend, as a top priority, the funds necessary to prevent genocide. > > The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due process of law.  IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as states may not suspend political speech related to elections by completely defunding or making media communications illegal.  But does a government have to support the access of certain individual citizens with lesser means to access the internet for political speech-rights purposes?  This depends on the existence of meaningful alternative means of exercising the right.  IF it is found that lack of access to the internet would very substantially impede exercise of political speech rights and that the alternative methods of expression are inadequate, then a state must expend the funds or take the actions necessary to faciliate political speech rights. > > Usually the nations that are in a position of having to make very difficult financial choices between things like water or infrastructure do NOT have electronic communications systems that are so pervasive that there are no meaningful alternatives to political speech via the internet, so as a practical matter this conflict is somewhat unlikely to arise.  But still, it is quite important indeed to recognize that internet access for speech purposes is a right even if not everyone can afford it, and even if the government is not obliged to fund it because there are other ways to express the right of political speech in that particular situation. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. >   > >     -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI  49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >   > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 10 08:35:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:35:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> References: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> Message-ID: <01508E96-D73B-48AD-8A79-E67296A67D7D@acm.org> Hi, A subject I will mostly avoid, at least for the moment is the contest about which rights are most important and whether the availability of information infrastructure and access to knowledge is critical in the alleviation of other issues by allowing access to the information on how to overcome issues of food production, water purification and the avoidance of disease. I see this as one of those 'dancing angels on the head of a pin' issues and beleive that all rights need to be provided for, without allowing predators to take advantage of disadvantaged populations. A point I do want to make is that the submarine cables were not meant for just the purposes of access in the coastal countries but where meant to provide sufficient access for all of the populations in the developing economies inside the continent and away from the coast. Yes there are issues about transit and dark cable that need to be dealt with, that have not yet been dealt with adequately, but the point is Kenya's and other coastal countries use of bandwidth, whether your estimate are correct or not, was not the full load intended for these cables. avri On 10 Jan 2012, at 08:08, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Example 1 : in 2012 there are 6 submarine cable systems along the West African coast (a seventh is planned and three others are envisaged). Half of the six would be largely sufficient in terms of traffic (even for the ten coming years), redundance and even competition. Extra cost generated by this situation : 1,6 billion dollars (only CAPEX). > Example 2 : Kenya has 7 terrestrial networks the half of which carrying just a symbolic traffic. Three networks would largely satisfy the domestic needs for the ten years ahead. Extra cost is about 30 million (only CAPEX). Another example : In African countries the mean number of mobile operators is between 4 to 8. In industriallized countries this figure is betwenn 2 and 4. Unless to say that here are huge amounts of resources spent for "ideological" reasons (competition, free market rule ...). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Tue Jan 10 08:52:35 2012 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:52:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <01508E96-D73B-48AD-8A79-E67296A67D7D@acm.org> References: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> <01508E96-D73B-48AD-8A79-E67296A67D7D@acm.org> Message-ID: <20120110135322.7D4304B449@npogroups.org> At 01:35 PM 1/10/2012, Avri Doria wrote: >A point I do want to make is that the submarine cables were not >meant for just the purposes of access in the coastal countries but >where meant to provide sufficient access for all of the populations >in the developing economies inside the continent and away from the >coast. Yes there are issues about transit and dark cable that need >to be dealt with, that have not yet been dealt with adequately, but >the point is Kenya's and other coastal countries use of bandwidth, >whether your estimate are correct or not, was not the full load >intended for these cables. Agree with Avri. There are critical issues at the ground or national level, including corporate or regional level, though the former ones rule, partly due to policies, and also due to other local manifestations, especially in many developing countries they are not being utilized properly as desired. Hakik ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 10 09:14:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:14:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <20120110135323.7AC764B46F@npogroups.org> References: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> <01508E96-D73B-48AD-8A79-E67296A67D7D@acm.org> <20120110135323.7AC764B46F@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <4F0C47AF.2080305@gmail.com> To avoid the angels on pins, the point is that prioritisation (or allocative decisions) are typically left to legislatures (executives) as these are difficult decisions. But context matters, it is not a problem for a Finland to put a positive right to access, which may not come to similar fruition in Africa where it could be a negative defensive one (i.e. the state cannot impede access, while not having a positive duty to provide it to all) while conducting itself to progressively realise this right. The point is that there are human rights that can protect both the Finland and African context needs, and one can surmise that a positive right in Finland would lend credence to existence of the negative defensive right or to a higher standard of protection. But rights are framed in general terms and the specfics would need to be codified in law or practice or policy as this balance is perenially contested (positive and negative). The point is that like one does not want Africans cut off from water services if they cannot pay (without due process) the same may apply in rich countries. There is a tendency to assume that Universal Human Rights are not context specific, and this tendency gives rise to one size fits all approaches and to universalisation of abstractions that (in fact) do violence to difference. In the European context, there is the concept of margin of appreciation... what confounds matters is the predilection to assume that human rights are liberal rights and hence must come with the same economic baggage... and in many instances this is not apposite... On 2012/01/10 03:52 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > At 01:35 PM 1/10/2012, Avri Doria wrote: >> A point I do want to make is that the submarine cables were not meant >> for just the purposes of access in the coastal countries but where >> meant to provide sufficient access for all of the populations in the >> developing economies inside the continent and away from the coast. >> Yes there are issues about transit and dark cable that need to be >> dealt with, that have not yet been dealt with adequately, but the >> point is Kenya's and other coastal countries use of bandwidth, >> whether your estimate are correct or not, was not the full load >> intended for these cables. > > Agree with Avri. There are critical issues at the ground or national > level, including corporate or regional level, though the former ones > rule, partly due to policies, and also due to other local > manifestations, especially in many developing countries they are not > being utilized properly as desired. > > Hakik > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 09:44:57 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:44:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] FYI: Sub-Sahara Africa submarine capacity to exceed20 terabits in 2012 Message-ID: <3CA1D7BFF7CA4C1F92D68BE363A23EB2@UserVAIO> pictorially - http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables/ - http://www.cablemap.info/ (interesting to see future cables, and where they're going) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jan 10 09:48:56 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:48:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: WSJ.com - The Race to Nab Web Addresses In-Reply-To: <1284890719.40301326206853098.JavaMail.tomcat@localhost> References: <1284890719.40301326206853098.JavaMail.tomcat@localhost> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0622DC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:47 AM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: WSJ.com - The Race to Nab Web Addresses [WSJ.com] [http://images.clickability.com/logos/336699/emailthis-logo.gif] * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. The market's opening bell has rung... Click the following to access the sent link: [http://images.clickability.com/partners/3120/etIcon.gif] WSJ.com - The Race to Nab Web Addresses* This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed. [SAVE THIS link] [FORWARD THIS link] Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information. *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204124204577149033198903356-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwMDExNDAyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email_bot -------------- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Jan 10 11:00:44 2012 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:00:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 11:34:04 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:34:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jacqueiline, As the letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang states there will be 4 existing MAG members from the CS groups to remain in the rotated MAG, is the NomCom considering putting those name forward from all of us IGC members that have remained active, and, how can we submit our interest to be part of the remaining? On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, 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 > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 10 11:37:21 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:37:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I was one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. On 1/10/12 8:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Jacqueiline, > > As the letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang states there > will be 4 existing MAG members from the CS groups to remain in the > rotated MAG, is the NomCom considering putting those name forward from > all of us IGC members that have remained active, and, how can we > submit our interest to be part of the remaining? > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, 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 >> >> > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Jan 10 13:34:47 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:34:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1326220487.14777.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Jacqueline I notice that the dead line given below is Jan 20 . I'm assuming this is correct , our final date for submission being Jan 31 ? regards Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Jacqueline Morris To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:00 AM 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-GeneralSha 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Jan 10 17:54:26 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:54:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?NYT_opinion_by_Vint_Cerf=3A_Internet_A?= =?UTF-8?Q?ccess_is_=C2=A0not_a_HR?= Message-ID: <10941495.37204.1326236066936.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f12> Hello I'd just mention that I know something about (submarine) cables and telecom networks since I's practiizing them at high level (from design to implementation to operation and management for more than forty years. And I do know very well the engineering rules and their application, including traffic planning and management. Furthermore I know large regions in Africa because I was a Project Coordinator for the ITU during twenty years. This is to say that I'd not fall into the trap Avri and Hakik suggest in their mail (see below). Of course, landlocked countries will be served by the submarine cables and add their extra-continental (both incoming to, and outgoing from, Africa) traffic to the submarine cable landing countries one. At the condition a cable exists to connect these countries to each other. Unfortunately this is far from being achieved in all countries concerned. What's more the capacity installed in three submarine cables is sufficient for transporting this extra-continental traffic for ten years to come (see http://www.lightwaveonline.com/networking/featured-articles/Sub-Sahara-Africa-submarine-capacity-to-exceed-20-terabits-in-2012-136939683.html?cmpid=EnlDirectJanuary92012) Finally as you may know, an investment that is postponed is a resource saved and translates in financial revenue. That's why I believe my statement is valid. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack   > Message du 10/01/12 14:53 > De : "Hakikur Rahman" > A : "Avri Doria" , "IGC" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is  not a HR > > At 01:35 PM 1/10/2012, Avri Doria wrote: > >A point I do want to make is that the submarine cables were not > >meant for just the purposes of access in the coastal countries but > >where meant to provide sufficient access for all of the populations > >in the developing economies inside the continent and away from the > >coast. Yes there are issues about transit and dark cable that need > >to be dealt with, that have not yet been dealt with adequately, but > >the point is Kenya's and other coastal countries use of bandwidth, > >whether your estimate are correct or not, was not the full load > >intended for these cables. > > Agree with Avri. There are critical issues at the ground or national > level, including corporate or regional level, though the former ones > rule, partly due to policies, and also due to other local > manifestations, especially in many developing countries they are not > being utilized properly as desired. > > Hakik > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Tue Jan 10 18:12:49 2012 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:12:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?NYT_opinion_by_Vint_Cerf=3A_Inter?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?net_A_ccess_is__=C2=A0not_a_HR?= In-Reply-To: <10941495.37204.1326236066936.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f12> References: <10941495.37204.1326236066936.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f12> Message-ID: <20120110231311.58D0E4B42B@npogroups.org> Jean-Louis and All, My point for supporting Avri was on the same issue that you have mentioned. I have marked it bold inside your text. And, will be happy to discuss further in resolving these issues, especially in developing countries. Thanking you, Hakik At 22:54 10-01-2012, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >Hello > >I'd just mention that I know something about >(submarine) cables and telecom networks since >I's practiizing them at high level (from design >to implementation to operation and management >for more than forty years. And I do know very >well the engineering rules and their >application, including traffic planning and >management. Furthermore I know large regions in >Africa because I was a Project Coordinator for >the ITU during twenty years. This is to say that >I'd not fall into the trap Avri and Hakik suggest in their mail (see below). > >Of course, landlocked countries will be served >by the submarine cables and add their >extra-continental (both incoming to, and >outgoing from, Africa) traffic to the submarine >cable landing countries one. At the condition a >cable exists to connect these countries to each >other. Unfortunately this is far from being >achieved in all countries concerned. What's more >the capacity installed in three submarine cables >is sufficient for transporting this >extra-continental traffic for ten years to come >(see >http://www.lightwaveonline.com/networking/featured-articles/Sub-Sahara-Africa-submarine-capacity-to-exceed-20-terabits-in-2012-136939683.html?cmpid=EnlDirectJanuary92012) > >Finally as you may know, an investment that is >postponed is a resource saved and translates in >financial revenue. That's why I believe my statement is valid. > >Best > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 10/01/12 14:53 > > De : "Hakikur Rahman" > > A : "Avri Doria" , "IGC" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint > Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR > > > > At 01:35 PM 1/10/2012, Avri Doria wrote: > > >A point I do want to make is that the submarine cables were not > > >meant for just the purposes of access in the coastal countries but > > >where meant to provide sufficient access for all of the populations > > >in the developing economies inside the continent and away from the > > >coast. Yes there are issues about transit and dark cable that need > > >to be dealt with, that have not yet been dealt with adequately, but > > >the point is Kenya's and other coastal countries use of bandwidth, > > >whether your estimate are correct or not, was not the full load > > >intended for these cables. > > > > Agree with Avri. There are critical issues at the ground or national > > level, including corporate or regional level, though the former ones > > rule, partly due to policies, and also due to other local > > manifestations, especially in many developing countries they are not > > being utilized properly as desired. > > > > Hakik > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 10 23:18:31 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:18:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> References: <21576742.12733.1326200889815.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e28> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Ivar and members of the list > > >> "The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of the >> pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet broadband >> infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge sums paid by >> the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a misuse of >> precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on more vital >> needs for the population." >> I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. > > Since you are quoting an extract of my mail, let me add a short comment on > the reasons that inspired this sentence. > > It is not the principle of ICT/telecom infrastructure to be available and > services to be used ... and paid for by people in DCs. This could even be a > "right" :-) for some equality with rich countries and people living there. > What I wanted to stress in my phrase is the huge amount of the COST for this > to happen. And more particularly the extra investments paid for overlapping > and duplicating infrastructure as well as redundent networks. Just two > examples to illustrates this : I think your main point is that these are mostly public funds spent on these types of projects? If so, you would be incorrect to assume that. > Example 1 : in 2012 there are 6 submarine cable systems along the West > African coast (a seventh is planned and three others are envisaged). Half of > the six would be largely sufficient in terms of traffic (even for the ten > coming years), redundance and even competition. Extra cost generated by this > situation : 1,6 billion dollars (only CAPEX). Joke: what’s an international fibre project? A person with a power-point presentation who goes to conferences. In other words, I doubt we will see all of the projects that have been advertised actually finished. Most of that CAPEX comes from the PS, not governments, with the caveats that some few projects are PPPs. > Example 2 : Kenya has 7 terrestrial networks the half of which carrying just > a symbolic traffic. Three networks would largely satisfy the domestic needs > for the ten years ahead. Extra cost is about 30 million (only CAPEX). I guess I live in a parallel Kenya than the one you live in, as I don't see 7 terrestial networks here. Certainly in Nairobi folk have put lots of glass in the ground and we do have 4 mobile operators that cover large parts of the country (but certainly not all). Most of the terrestrial fiber (we have more fiber than copper at this point) is again paid for by the PS, not the government. > Another example : In African countries the mean number of mobile operators > is between 4 to 8. In industriallized countries this figure is betwenn 2 and > 4. Unless to say that here are huge amounts of resources spent for > "ideological" reasons (competition, free market rule ...). Again, these are mostly PS resources, which wouldn't be spent on water, sanitation, public health, etc anyway! > All this cost (plus the OPEX, plus the gifts to the shareholders) must be > paid for : that is the reason why African mobile users must afford 50 > billion dollars per year (and this amount is strongly growing!). > > That is what I find particularly unworthy for people living in DCs and for > the countries themselves. They have more basic needs that I mentioned in my > mail (access to water and sanitation, access to electricity, to education, > to health, to food) and therefore as many "rights" to question such a "cable > glut", systematically welcomed by the "international constituencies", first > of all the ITU ! > > IMHO this it is also the duty of CS to stress such misappropriation of > financial resources that generate ten thousands of deaths among people in > DCs. FYI : the budget of FAO is equal to the cost of the useless surplus of > submarine cables mentioned above. Then this is not a failure of the market, but a failure of governments to support FAO. What is your alternative to a market based approach to building Internet and telecoms infrastructure in LDCs? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 11 05:01:11 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:01:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo Message-ID: Dear list, Here's how we started the meeting this morning in Geneva. I also attache the statement we prepared and read on lack of financial support. Here we are, Parminder, Wolfgang and myself attending physically, and Marilia and Anriette remote participation. Please understand these are only instant memo and have no guarantee of accuracy per se. izumi ---- CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting Jan 11 10:20 - Peter, Chair’s short presentation: Topics: Mandate of WGIGF 3rd meeting agreed main topics discussions progress Follow-up Organization of 4th meeting topics exepcetation and schedule, documents hopefully – we will start drafting of recommendations Conculsion Mandage of WGIGF establihsed by ECOSOC, establish in an open and inclusive manner to seek cimpile and review inputs, in line with its mandage as set out by Tunis agenda preseve its basic character as multistakeholder character, non decision-making Agreed: Shaping of outcomes of IGF meeting Working modalities Fuding Broadening participation Linking IGF to other related proceeses/mechansim - no time to discuss 3rd meeting agreed main topics discussions pregress Follow-up Organization of 4th meeting topics exepcetation and schedule, documents hopefully – we will start drafting of recommendations Conculsion Wgig points of broad agreement for each ttime summary of disucssions by Portugral asked UN DESA for funding issues Itme A, B & D – brpad ageement Item C- points of broad agreement consensus on exploring funding by UN Item E discuss at this meeting Follow-up of the 3rd meeting Chariman’s sumamry of the meeting – published at UNCTAD site Letter to UN DESA – UN financng possibilities wuick acknowledgement from UN DESA leter distributed concerns outcomes expressed by DESA Information requested from IGF Secretariat CSTD inter-sessional meeting, Manila, December 2011 – Chair’s presentation Sha’s letter on IGF MAG It’s most important to have mutual trust. we made measurable protress with broad agreement, something tangible based on this broad agreement, we can arrive to recommendation Tasks for 4th meeting General debate on Itece C to be completed Dicussion on Time E Drafting of recommendations C. Funding of the IGF E Linking the IGF to otherrelated processes/ AOB related to our previous discussions, upto discussion based on tipics and on broad agreements coherent text with no ambiguity In case of dissent – alternative recommendations in addition to recommendations by maority Iterpretation shold be straightforward Provision – be solitaly - ? Conclusion In case we cannot conclude – 5th meeting 20-22, Feb 2012 recommendations as part of Chair’s report to CSTD 15th session, May 2012, draf resolution on WSIS folow-up to be approved by ECOSOC If accepted, it will be endorsed by UN GA at the end of 2012 Monitoring of implementation is very important Report on implementation of recommendations to the CSTD 16th session, May 2013 I don’t expect all recommendations be implemented this year, thus requires monitoring next yeat to continue END of Chair’s presentation Izumi made Civil Society statement on lack of financial support. Agenda adopted. Financing will be discussed perhaps tomorrow. Starting discussion – E. Linkage Parminder, taking the first floor since nobody else is taking. Linkage should be establshed – wanted to clarify. Issues - give set of policy questions, enough time to work on – in the process how to link with this process- start policy questions in early, phase of the year, February, and continue discuss toward IGF in fall Peter IGF’s role- unique, or regional and national. George institutional aspects of linking human rights council, Sweden introduced – Internet HR UNCTAD – surpried, not aware of Peter Observer status – can be given to IGF Secretariat Egypt read the one para text on linkage -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 11 06:15:10 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:15:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can understand. But will share the summaries. After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more substantive discussion on Linkage. Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - Do not institutionalize too much Make two-way communication with other bodies Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. It is important to carry out Outreach. Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and Special Advisor or not - is now sort of being debated. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 11 07:50:39 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:50:39 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some views to add to Izumi's memo: - Remote participation is working well for me. Audio is good (minor cuts) and I made a remote intervention. Not as fluid and interactive as onsite, so it has political implication on a meeting like this. But secretariat and members are really open to receive remote inputs. Anriette is having problems with audio, unfortunately. - The meeting started warm. Afterwards it improved in the discussion of point E on links between the IGF and other processes. - Some argued that these links mean that secretariat should do outreach and PR, and inform about the IGF. Others argued for stronger links to communicate IGF outcomes (convergences and divergences), especially with other organizations of the UN system, and ask them for feedback. - Time was spent to discuss competences of the executive coordinator of the IGF. Kind of pointless, imo, but maybe I could not get it well - Wolfgang made ​​an important point about the need to separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie these up - Some misunderstanding happened and it seems that the answers to the questions WG members asked about funding have not arrived yet. Maybe they will arrive later today, so the point about funding was postponed. - Now the group is on lunch breake. Too early for me, so I am on coffee breake. Best, M On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can > understand. But will share the summaries. > > > After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more substantive > discussion on Linkage. > > Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - > > Do not institutionalize too much > Make two-way communication with other bodies > > Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. > > It is important to carry out Outreach. > > Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and Special Advisor > or not - is now sort of being debated. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 08:45:04 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:45:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wolfgang can explain the idea that suggested: "*- Wolfgang made ​​an important** point about the need to separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie **these up"* Just for a good understanding SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/1/11 Marilia Maciel > Some views to add to Izumi's memo: > > > - Remote participation is working well for me. Audio is good (minor cuts) > and I made a remote intervention. Not as fluid and interactive as onsite, > so it has political implication on a meeting like this. But secretariat and > members are really open to receive remote inputs. Anriette is having > problems with audio, unfortunately. > - The meeting started warm. Afterwards it improved in the discussion of > point E on links between the IGF and other processes. > - Some argued that these links mean that secretariat should do outreach and > PR, and inform about the IGF. Others argued for stronger links to > communicate IGF outcomes (convergences and divergences), especially with other > organizations of the UN system, and ask them for feedback. > - Time was spent to discuss competences of the executive coordinator of > the IGF. Kind of pointless, imo, but maybe I could not get it well > - Wolfgang made ​​an important point about the need to separate linkages > with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other organizations. I > think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which was ventilated > before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie these > up > - Some misunderstanding happened and it seems that the answers to the > questions WG members asked about funding have not arrived yet. Maybe they > will arrive later today, so the point about funding was postponed. > - Now the group is on lunch breake. Too early for me, so I am on coffee > breake. > > Best, > M > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can >> understand. But will share the summaries. >> >> >> After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more substantive >> discussion on Linkage. >> >> Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - >> >> Do not institutionalize too much >> Make two-way communication with other bodies >> >> Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. >> >> It is important to carry out Outreach. >> >> Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and Special Advisor >> or not - is now sort of being debated. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 09:09:21 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:09:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Guys, for the sake of clarity, just bear in mind that we are reporting roughly our own interpretation of what we hear/understand, ok? But you are right, valuable to explore further. It was a good point. M On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Wolfgang can explain the idea that suggested: > > "*- Wolfgang made ​​an important** point about the need to separate > linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other > organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which > was ventilated before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be > a way to tie **these up"* > > Just for a good understanding > > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > > 2012/1/11 Marilia Maciel > >> Some views to add to Izumi's memo: >> >> >> - Remote participation is working well for me. Audio is good (minor >> cuts) and I made a remote intervention. Not as fluid and interactive as >> onsite, so it has political implication on a meeting like this. But >> secretariat and members are really open to receive remote inputs. Anriette >> is having problems with audio, unfortunately. >> - The meeting started warm. Afterwards it improved in the discussion of >> point E on links between the IGF and other processes. >> - Some argued that these links mean that secretariat should do outreach and >> PR, and inform about the IGF. Others argued for stronger links to >> communicate IGF outcomes (convergences and divergences), especially with other >> organizations of the UN system, and ask them for feedback. >> - Time was spent to discuss competences of the executive coordinator of >> the IGF. Kind of pointless, imo, but maybe I could not get it well >> - Wolfgang made ​​an important point about the need to separate linkages >> with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other organizations. I >> think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which was ventilated >> before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie these >> up >> - Some misunderstanding happened and it seems that the answers to the >> questions WG members asked about funding have not arrived yet. Maybe they >> will arrive later today, so the point about funding was postponed. >> - Now the group is on lunch breake. Too early for me, so I am on coffee >> breake. >> >> Best, >> M >> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can >>> understand. But will share the summaries. >>> >>> >>> After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more substantive >>> discussion on Linkage. >>> >>> Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - >>> >>> Do not institutionalize too much >>> Make two-way communication with other bodies >>> >>> Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. >>> >>> It is important to carry out Outreach. >>> >>> Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and Special Advisor >>> or not - is now sort of being debated. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 11 09:24:59 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:24:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Marilia, we are acting on personal basis and free to report whatever with your interpretation so long as you are confident with. izumi 2012/1/11 Marilia Maciel : > Guys, for the sake of clarity, just bear in mind that we are reporting > roughly our own interpretation of what we hear/understand, ok? > But you are right, valuable to explore further. It was a good point. > M > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE > wrote: >> >> Wolfgang can explain the idea that suggested: >> >> "- Wolfgang made an important point about the need to >> separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs and with other >> organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the observatory, which was >> ventilated before here and, more recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a >> way to tie these up" >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 11 09:33:05 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:33:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0D9DA1.90305@apc.org> Hi all... my attempt at being a remote participant is failing miserably. This reminds me that: - internet speeds in South Africa are still generally pathetically slow - people who participate remotely in IGF processes deserve a HUGE amount of respect for their patience during IGFs and open consultations. Audio is much better this afternoon.. so I remain hopeful. Thanks for the updates from those in Geneva. Best Anriette On 11/01/12 16:09, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Guys, for the sake of clarity, just bear in mind that we are reporting > roughly our own interpretation of what we hear/understand, ok? > But you are right, valuable to explore further. It was a good point. > M > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE > wrote: > > Wolfgang can explain the idea that suggested: > > "/- Wolfgang made ​​an important// point about the need to > separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs > and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the > observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more recently, > by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie //these up"/ > > Just for a good understanding > > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > > 2012/1/11 Marilia Maciel > > > Some views to add to Izumi's memo: > > > - Remote participation is working well for me. Audio is good > (minor cuts) and I made a remote intervention. Not as fluid and > interactive as onsite, so it has political implication on a > meeting like this. But secretariat and members are really open > to receive remote inputs. Anriette is having problems with > audio, unfortunately. > - The meeting started warm. Afterwards it improved in the > discussion of point E on links between the IGF and other processes. > - Some argued that these links mean that secretariat > should do outreach and PR, and inform about the IGF. Others > argued for stronger links to communicate IGF outcomes > (convergences and divergences), especially with other > organizations of the UN system, and ask them for feedback. > - Time was spent to discuss competences of the executive > coordinator of the IGF. Kind of pointless, imo, but maybe I > could not get it well > - Wolfgang made ​​an important point about the need to > separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs > and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of > the observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more > recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie these up > - Some misunderstanding happened and it seems that the answers > to the questions WG members asked about funding have not arrived > yet. Maybe they will arrive later today, so the point about > funding was postponed. > - Now the group is on lunch breake. Too early for me, so I am on > coffee breake. > > Best, > M > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > > Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can > understand. But will share the summaries. > > > After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more > substantive > discussion on Linkage. > > Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - > > Do not institutionalize too much > Make two-way communication with other bodies > > Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. > > It is important to carry out Outreach. > > Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and > Special Advisor > or not - is now sort of being debated. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 11 09:42:08 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:42:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: <4F0D9DA1.90305@apc.org> References: <4F0D9DA1.90305@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, I am in full support of your position and sentiments. It requires great deal of patience, etc. I just spoke to the staff during lunch that unless proactively invited, it is very difficult for remote participants to actively contribute/express their views and comments in frequent and/or timely manner. I raised this at the end of morning session to the group, and I may try again. izumi 2012/1/11 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Hi all... my attempt at being a remote participant is failing miserably. >  This reminds me that: > > - internet speeds in South Africa are still generally pathetically slow > > - people who participate remotely in IGF processes deserve a HUGE amount > of respect for their patience during IGFs and open consultations. > > Audio is much better this afternoon.. so I remain hopeful. > > Thanks for the updates from those in Geneva. > > Best > > Anriette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jan 11 10:16:19 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:16:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Pew gTLD Progam is no more a swindle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20120111135359.06788200@jefsey.com> The ICANN procedures are cute. They are not that easy to understand, follow and eventually comply with. However, they time to time, ultimately permit some transparency in order to show that it was possible not to pay ICANN for something small when you can get "samething" big for free (but without the ICANN legalities). In the Pew gTLD Program case, I made an effort to try to save ICANN millions. You will find it at the URL http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook/msg00013.html. I hope this demonstrate enough that ICANN and the US Governments are not crooks: - they only did not "underline" the full truth, as every good sales, at it results from the small prints - however, and I am the proof, they made nothing to prevent the truth from being published before the gTLD candidates send their requests and checks. The truth is that: 1. there is no technical difference between gTLDs and IDNgTLDs except non contractual foreign software application (punycode family of alogithms) TLD registrant cannot control. 2. ICANN uses a "de facto" situation to register TLDs that can be "de jure" (RFCs) replicated in 65,535 other DNS top level registries. 3. TLDs may use protected IRNs (International Root Names) by WIPO or ISO. The use of a string as a TLD does not protect it as an IRN. 4. ICANN stays at the IETF Internet end to end layers under the ignorance of the US Government. This is obsolete: IETF RFCs have already transparently made inteligent users to scale to fringe to fringe Internet+. http://iutf.org/wiki/Internet%2B_architectural_Framework. This makes clear that the ICANN Pew gTLD Program brings to its gTLD registrants is a very worked-out screen of paper to sign and an entry in the DNS CLASS "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) every of us can replicate, - in full right: in 255 other CLASSes - at least in test: in 65.375 other ones. If this was plainly stated in the Agreement, this would be perfectly honnest. As it is not, Courts may have to decide. However, in favor of ICANN: 1. my mail was published by ICANN within the Pew gTLD Program dedicated part, on a public forumeveryone could read. 2. RFC are publicly published and TLD would be Managers should know them to correctly operates the service they plan to sell. After several RFCs over the last 29 years of DNS operations, RFC 5395 states anew: "DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary relationship between the name space or root servers for one data CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. [] The current CLASS assignments [] are as follows: This simply means that for each ".abcd" top-zone IDNgTLD paid K$ 185++ to ICANN, there can be 65,535 other ".abcd" top-zones in the DNS. Some will be immediatel because the IUTF is going to accept a few CLASSes for family protection, customer documentation, testing of third party applications, etc. jfc -------------- 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 Wed Jan 11 10:22:56 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:22:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Here follows and attached is the statement I read this morning on the lack of travel support for CSTD WG participation. We will discuss this issue further when we reach the issue of IGF funding, tomorrow. izumi ---- Statement from civil society participants in the CSTD working group on IGF improvements - Submitted to the 4th meeting of the working group, 11 January 2012 On behalf of the civil society participants in this process we want to draw your attention to a concern which we believe could have an impact on whether this group succeeds or fails in achieving the goals mandated to it by ECOSOC. On December 21 2011 civil society participants in the working group were informed that the CSTD would not be able to provide financial support towards the participation of civil society representatives from developing countries in the working group's fourth meeting. After seeking clarification from the Secretariat we were informed by Mr. Mongi Hamdi that the CSTD fund for civil society participation can only be utilised by participants from Least Developed Countries. Currently developing country participants in the working group are from Brazil, India and South Africa and therefore none of them qualify for support. Mr. Hamdi did clarify that this restriction is imposed by the donor and not by the CSTD itself. We believe that his lack of support will have a negative impact on the participation of civil society during this crucial last leg of the process. Moreover, we want to emphasise that our concern extends beyond just the participation of civil society; it raises fundamental questions about the CSTD's commitment to and capacity to sustain multistakeholder participation in all its processes. 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. As has been stated in several submissions to the working group, 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. 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 believe this is contrary to what we have all been trying to achieve through the IGF since the Tunis Summit in 2005. Thus far the work of this CSTD working group could be well-synthesized by the words “diversity” and “openness”. In our discussion we have always relied on a plurality of views to achieve synergy and to push us forward. We want to commend all working group members, participants, and chairpersons, for their commitment to this inclusive and open style of work. We also want to to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the support from donors who have made multistakeholder participation in the working group possible up to this point. But at the same time we want to call attention to the fact that such donations tend to be unpredictable. Civil society participation in the IGF process (and indeed the participation of all other stakeholders from developing countries who lack the necessary resources) cannot remain dependent on unpredictable funding. We urge this group to discuss the funding of the IGF in depth, including the financial support needed for diverse and inclusive participation. 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. ---- --                         >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Statement from civil society participants in the CSTD IGF WG Jan 11 .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 158678 bytes Desc: not available URL: From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 10:40:42 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:40:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a very strong statement that I support it 100%. Congratulations. 2012/1/11 Izumi AIZU > Dear all, > > Here follows and attached is the statement I read this morning on the > lack of travel support for CSTD WG participation. > > We will discuss this issue further when we reach the issue of IGF > funding, tomorrow. > > izumi > > ---- > > Statement from civil society participants in the CSTD working group on > IGF improvements - Submitted to the 4th meeting of the working group, > 11 January 2012 > > On behalf of the civil society participants in this process we want to > draw your attention to a concern which we believe could have an impact > on whether this group succeeds or fails in achieving the goals > mandated to it by ECOSOC. > > On December 21 2011 civil society participants in the working group > were informed that the CSTD would not be able to provide financial > support towards the participation of civil society representatives > from developing countries in the working group's fourth meeting. After > seeking clarification from the Secretariat we were informed by Mr. > Mongi Hamdi that the CSTD fund for civil society participation can > only be utilised by participants from Least Developed Countries. > Currently developing country participants in the working group are > from Brazil, India and South Africa and therefore none of them qualify > for support. Mr. Hamdi did clarify that this restriction is imposed by > the donor and not by the CSTD itself. > > We believe that his lack of support will have a negative impact on the > participation of civil society during this crucial last leg of the > process. Moreover, we want to emphasise that our concern extends > beyond just the participation of civil society; it raises fundamental > questions about the CSTD's commitment to and capacity to sustain > multistakeholder participation in all its processes. > > 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. As has been stated in several submissions to the working > group, 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. > > 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 believe this is contrary to what > we have all been trying to achieve through the IGF since the Tunis > Summit in 2005. > > Thus far the work of this CSTD working group could be well-synthesized > by the words “diversity” and “openness”. In our discussion we have > always relied on a plurality of views to achieve synergy and to push > us forward. We want to commend all working group members, > participants, and chairpersons, for their commitment to this inclusive > and open style of work. > We also want to to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the > support from donors who have made multistakeholder participation in > the working group possible up to this point. But at the same time we > want to call attention to the fact that such donations tend to be > unpredictable. Civil society participation in the IGF process (and > indeed the participation of all other stakeholders from developing > countries who lack the necessary resources) cannot remain dependent on > unpredictable funding. We urge this group to discuss the funding of > the IGF in depth, including the financial support needed for diverse > and inclusive participation. > > 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. > > ---- > > > -- > >> 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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 11 10:47:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:47:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> Message-ID: In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I was >one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is Fouad). Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third of the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then the un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". Which has the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will be rotated off. I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 11:11:56 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:11:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <377CBEED5D624A42B76ACE0B7BC6E0CB@UserVAIO> A couple of points about Izumi's statement... One very minor... There is I believe, a typo at the beginning of the third paragraph... "We believe that his lack of support" should presumably be "We believe that THIS lack of support", the former changing the sense and personalizing the comment in an unfortunate and I'm assuming unintentional way. The second is rather more fundamental. In certain recent statements (I'm forgetting which ones) CS has not accepted the common UN etc. position of funding "Developing Country" reps in favour of funding for civil society representatives overall... Many/most will realize that in these days of sometimes quite severe financial cut-backs and a vast array of unsympathetic governments, CS folks from developing countries may have equal difficulty in finding/allocating funding for travel to these kinds of events and thus the process of "exclusion" extends now to those from poorer DC's and from poorer organizations/representatives overall within DC's. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:23 AM To: Governance List Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding support Dear all, Here follows and attached is the statement I read this morning on the lack of travel support for CSTD WG participation. We will discuss this issue further when we reach the issue of IGF funding, tomorrow. iz ---- Statement from civil society participants in the CSTD working group on IGF improvements - Submitted to the 4th meeting of the working group, 11 January 2012 On behalf of the civil society participants in this process we want to draw your attention to a concern which we believe could have an impact on whether this group succeeds or fails in achieving the goals mandated to it by ECOSOC. On December 21 2011 civil society participants in the working group were informed that the CSTD would not be able to provide financial support towards the participation of civil society representatives from developing countries in the working group's fourth meeting. After seeking clarification from the Secretariat we were informed by Mr. Mongi Hamdi that the CSTD fund for civil society participation can only be utilised by participants from Least Developed Countries. Currently developing country participants in the working group are from Brazil, India and South Africa and therefore none of them qualify for support. Mr. Hamdi did clarify that this restriction is imposed by the donor and not by the CSTD itself. We believe that his lack of support will have a negative impact on the participation of civil society during this crucial last leg of the process. Moreover, we want to emphasise that our concern extends beyond just the participation of civil society; it raises fundamental questions about the CSTD's commitment to and capacity to sustain multistakeholder participation in all its processes. 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. As has been stated in several submissions to the working group, 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. 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 believe this is contrary to what we have all been trying to achieve through the IGF since the Tunis Summit in 2005. Thus far the work of this CSTD working group could be well-synthesized by the words “diversity” and “openness”. In our discussion we have always relied on a plurality of views to achieve synergy and to push us forward. We want to commend all working group members, participants, and chairpersons, for their commitment to this inclusive and open style of work. We also want to to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the support from donors who have made multistakeholder participation in the working group possible up to this point. But at the same time we want to call attention to the fact that such donations tend to be unpredictable. Civil society participation in the IGF process (and indeed the participation of all other stakeholders from developing countries who lack the necessary resources) cannot remain dependent on unpredictable funding. We urge this group to discuss the funding of the IGF in depth, including the financial support needed for diverse and inclusive participation. 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. ---- --                         >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jan 11 11:25:44 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:25:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> I defer on process to the nomination Committee. I was only highlighting that the rules does not apply to the current composition of the MAG. On 1/11/12 7:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan > 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I was >> one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. > > There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is Fouad). > > Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third of > the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then the > un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". > Which has the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will be > rotated off. > > I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating > their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed > whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 11 11:30:09 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:30:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F0DB911.3020706@eff.org> I defer on process to the nomination Committee. I only highlighting that the Nomination Committee rules does not apply to the current composition of the MAG. > On 1/11/12 7:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan >> 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >>> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I >>> was one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. >> >> There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is >> Fouad). >> >> Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third >> of the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then >> the un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". >> Which has the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will >> be rotated off. >> >> I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating >> their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed >> whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Jan 11 11:56:49 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:56:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - my last Memo of the day Message-ID: We are approaching the end of Day 1. Now we are discussing the wording of the "broad agreement" on point 5, Links to other bodies. I asked the staff to share the draft text on the screen with Google Doc to be shared, and he agreed, but not happened yet and we have only 5 minutes to go. We have three or four paras describing the recommendations of increasing outreach, interaction with IGO, other entities, national governments, national and regional IGF processes, etc etc. Also increase developing countries participation, involve intellectuals, think tanks, among others, on and on. Well, at least we are producing the last part of broad agreement document, and many are seemingly tired so as not to make much noise. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jan 11 12:08:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:08:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> Message-ID: In message <4F0DB808.5 at eff.org>, at 08:25:44 on Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >I defer on process to the nomination Committee. I was only highlighting >that the rules does not apply to the current composition of the MAG. I think the problem is that the "rotation rule" has been poorly explained/understood. On one hand we might have expected that it was a "first in-last out" rotation process, where 1/3 were changed each year. Hard luck in a startup, where in year two everyone's equal, but to get the process going you simply have to send the short straw to a third of the group. On the other hand, if it's merely "one third rotated off each year, regardless of previous tenure" then it's inevitably going to be skewed towards newcomers leaving. As far as I can see, we have 16 members who've been there since day 1 (which is a quarter). >On 1/11/12 7:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan >>2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >>> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I >>>was one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. >> >> There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is Fouad). >> >> Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third >>of the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then >>the un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". >>Which has the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will be >>rotated off. >> >> I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating >>their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed >>whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Jan 11 13:10:37 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:10:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> Message-ID: <1326305437.87015.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi All Rotation is critical to infusion of new blood and ideas and vibrancy. At the same time we want to retain our best members for continuity and stability of MAG. Finding the correct balance is always a challenge. I have seen prior lists of the demography of current members and their tenure. Perhaps we can circulate this and the current rules of rotation. This would clarify our understanding and have us better prepared prior to the nominations rolling in. Regards Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Roland Perry To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In message <4F0DB808.5 at eff.org>, at 08:25:44 on Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes > I defer on process to the nomination Committee. I was only highlighting that the rules does not apply to the current composition of the MAG. I think the problem is that the "rotation rule" has been poorly explained/understood. On one hand we might have expected that it was a "first in-last out" rotation process, where 1/3 were changed each year. Hard luck in a startup, where in year two everyone's equal, but to get the process going you simply have to send the short straw to a third of the group. On the other hand, if it's merely "one third rotated off each year, regardless of previous tenure" then it's inevitably going to be skewed towards newcomers leaving. As far as I can see, we have 16 members who've been there since day 1 (which is a quarter). > On 1/11/12 7:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes >>> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I was  one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. >> >> There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is Fouad). >> >> Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third of  the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then the  un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". Which has the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will be rotated off. >> >> I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 14:11:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:11:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG In-Reply-To: <1326305437.87015.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <4F0C6941.1010905@eff.org> <4F0DB808.5@eff.org> <1326305437.87015.YahooMailNeo@web161905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, We have absolute faith that the Nom Com for MAG know what is required in terms of the selection process. We can give them encouragement and highlight things that they need to consider but at the end of the day, it's their call. Good luck to all of you who are applying. Best Regards, Sala On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:10 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Hi All > Rotation is critical to infusion of new blood and ideas and vibrancy. At > the same time we want to retain our best members for continuity and > stability of MAG. Finding the correct balance is always a challenge. I have > seen prior lists of the demography of current members and their tenure. > Perhaps we can circulate this and the current rules of rotation. This would > clarify our understanding and have us better prepared prior to the > nominations rolling in. > Regards > Shaila > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Roland Perry > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:08 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG > > In message <4F0DB808.5 at eff.org>, at 08:25:44 on Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Katitza > Rodriguez writes > > I defer on process to the nomination Committee. I was only highlighting > that the rules does not apply to the current composition of the MAG. > > I think the problem is that the "rotation rule" has been poorly > explained/understood. > > On one hand we might have expected that it was a "first in-last out" > rotation process, where 1/3 were changed each year. Hard luck in a startup, > where in year two everyone's equal, but to get the process going you simply > have to send the short straw to a third of the group. > > On the other hand, if it's merely "one third rotated off each year, > regardless of previous tenure" then it's inevitably going to be skewed > towards newcomers leaving. As far as I can see, we have 16 members who've > been there since day 1 (which is a quarter). > > > On 1/11/12 7:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <4F0C6941.1010905 at eff.org>, at 08:37:21 on Tue, 10 Jan > 2012, Katitza Rodriguez writes > >>> I think all existed MAG members have more than 2 years. I think I was > one of the latest one in the rotation, and I already have 3 years. > >> > >> There are only 20 MAG members as "recent" as yourself (another is > Fouad). > >> > >> Unless the plan is to keep every single one as the un-rotated third of > the MAG (in which case I would have expected them to say so) then the > un-rotated MAG will have to be a mixture of "3 year" and "older". Which has > the inevitable consequence that some of the "3 year" will be rotated off. > >> > >> I think I any stakeholder group should be looking at re-nominating > their best people, irrespective of how long they've served (or indeed > whether they served once and have been rotated off in earlier years). > > -- Roland Perry > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 15:09:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:09:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - my last Memo of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi. After the meeting if you guys have time to tidy it up, we can put it up on the website for records. Perhaps, with the relevant links to the meeting and including who all attended etc. If there are people who are at the meeting on twitter and which #tags we can follow etc. Reflections of those who are there face to face as well as those participating remotely such as Mariela. Thank you Team for the excellent memo and updates for Day 1. Warm Wishes, Sala On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We are approaching the end of Day 1. > Now we are discussing the wording of the "broad agreement" on point 5, > Links to other bodies. > > I asked the staff to share the draft text on the screen with Google > Doc to be shared, and he agreed, but not happened yet and we have only > 5 minutes to go. > > We have three or four paras describing the recommendations of > increasing outreach, interaction with IGO, other entities, national > governments, national and regional IGF processes, etc etc. > Also increase developing countries participation, involve > intellectuals, think tanks, among others, on and on. > > Well, at least we are producing the last part of broad agreement > document, and many are seemingly tired so as not to make much noise. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 16:03:06 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:33:06 +0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Yesterday’s article in Huffington Post ‘Google 'Search Plus Your World' Brings Google+ Into Search Results’ is for your information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/google-search-plus-your-world_n_1196565.html SAN FRANCISCO -- Google is sifting through the photos and commentary on its blossoming social network so its Internet search results can include more personal information. The additional personal touches that began to roll out Tuesday mark another step toward one of Google's most ambitious goals. The Internet search leader eventually hopes to know enough about each of its users so it can tailor its results to fit the unique interests of each person looking for something. Different people should start seeing different search results more frequently now that Google Inc. is importing content from its 6-month-old Plus service, a product that the company introduced in an attempt to counter the popularity of Facebook's online hangout and Twitter's short-messaging hub. Google's main search results page also will start highlighting more content from an older online photo service called Picasa. Other features will recommend additional people and companies to follow on Plus, based on their search requests. Those suggestions will exclude publicly accessible information about accounts on Facebook and Twitter. The preferential treatment for Plus might amplify concerns about the objectivity of Google's search results _a focal point of broad regulatory investigations in the U.S. and Europe. The Federal Trade Commission, attorneys general in six states, and the European Commission are looking into complaints alleging Google has been unfairly exploiting its dominance in Internet search to promote its other services while ignoring or downplaying pertinent information about its rivals. The exclusive Plus recommendations in Google's search results are "exactly the kind of thing that the antitrust people are screaming about," said Danny Sullivan, an industry expert who has been following Google since the 1990s and is now editor of SearchEngineLand.com. "This is very un-Google like. It's unfair to other services and it's unfair to people." Sullivan's criticism is especially striking because he has generally defended other search features that highlight Google's own services. Twitter said it's worried the added emphasis on Plus in Google's search results will make it more difficult to find breaking news and other compelling information shared within the 250 million messages, or tweets, posted on its service each day. "We think that's bad for people, publishers, news organizations and Twitter users," Twitter said in a statement. Facebook didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Google says its efforts to reel in more information from other sharing services are frequently thwarted by the providers. For instance, Twitter puts explicit instructions in its computer computing telling Google not to index the material, according to Google. "Ushering in the new era of social and private data search will take close cooperation, and we hope other sites participate so we can provide the best possible experience for our users," Google said in a statement issued after it was asked about its added emphasis on Plus in its search results. Facebook and Twitter pose a threat to Google because they don't allow Google's search engine to log most of the photos, links and observations cascading through those services. That's troublesome to Google because its search engine could become less useful if its system can't analyze what people are signaling is important to them so those preferences can be factored into the results. Twitter once gave Google better access to the tweets flowing through its service as part of a 2009 licensing agreement, but that deal expired last summer. Microsoft Corp.'s Bing search engine is still paying to mine into Twitter's service. Facebook has long cooperated with Bing, partly because Microsoft bought a 1.6 percent stake in the company in 2007. At the same time, Facebook has steadfastly resisted Google's attempts to peer deeper into its social network. That's one of the reasons Google started Plus, which is now hatching "Search, plus Your World." The feature will be automatically turned on for all English-language searches made by users logged into Google. Turning off the personal results permanently will require changing a setting in Google's personal preferences. The personal results can also be excluded on a search-by-search basis by clicking on an icon of the globe on the results page (the personal results will be denoted by a button featuring a human's silhouette). If the new formula works as Google expects, the search results will include pertinent information culled from the requestor's Plus account. For instance, a query about the San Francisco 49ers might include links and comments made about the football team by other people in one of the social circles on the user's Plus account. A search request that includes the name of a dog owned by the user or a friend might turn up photos of the pet that have been posted on Plus and Picasa. "This is going to open up a whole new avenue in search," said Ben Gomes, a Google fellow. Google isn't the first to do this. Bing has been mining some of the preferences and other information shared on Facebook since May. But Google's emphasis on more personal results figures to attract more attention because its search engine is so dominant. It handles about two-thirds of the Internet search requests made in the U.S. while Bing processes less than one-third, including the activity that it comes through a partnership with Yahoo Inc. Facebook, though, has greater insights into personal tastes. That's because its nearly 8-year-old social network boasts more than 800 million users who share more than 1.5 billion photos alone each week. In October, Google said Plus had more than 40 million users. Google hasn't updated the information since then, although some external studies have estimated Plus began the new year with 60 million to 70 million users. The search changes Some of Google's changes may help prod more people into joining Plus. As part of Tuesday's expansion, the profile pictures of Plus accountholders will appear in the drop-down suggestions on Google's search box. So when typing in "Mary," you may see those named Mary in your circle along with those Google believes you'd find interesting. Searches on general topics such as "music" and "sports," will generate suggestions on people and companies that have Plus accounts. Sullivan considers this be unfair because some people might not have Plus accounts, or share more interesting information on their Twitter page. While Google is hoping the addition of more personal results will make its search engine even more useful, the changes also could spook some people as they realize how much information is being compiled about them. Google tried to minimize privacy concerns by recently switching to technology that encrypts all its search results to protect the information from slipping out. Previous privacy missteps by both Google and Facebook resulted in both companies entering into settlements with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The FTC agreements require Google and Facebook to submit to external audits of their privacy practices every other year. Nariné Khachatryan Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia http://www.immasin.am http://www.safe.am/ http://www.mediaeducation.am/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 11 17:48:50 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:48:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [SPAM] Sign our Petition. Stop SOPA and help save Free Speech Message-ID: <10B7FF9796E84CFB80923F3857536EA0@UserVAIO> In case you missed this... M -----Original Message----- From: Tea Party Nation [mailto:mail at teapartynation.com] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 8:00 AM To: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Subject: [SPAM] Sign our Petition. Stop SOPA and help save Free Speech Tea Party Nation A message to all members of Tea Party Nation Over the last few weeks, we at Tea Party Nation have been telling you about the two bills that are being considered in the House and the Senate. The PROTECT-IP bill and the SOPA (Stop online Piracy Act) bill. At TPN, we usually refer to these bills as the Internet Death Penalty Act, as these bills will kill free speech on the Internet. We need your help now! Take a moment to first sign our petition , then take a moment to share this email with all of your friends. These bills are terrible ideas. They will create laws as draconian as China's laws and will allow the government or even private individuals to cause a website to be shut down on a mere allegation. If someone claims a copyright violation, the web hosting service has five days to remove the website or be sued. Search engines are required to delete any reference to the site, so it cannot be found. All of this is done before the owner of the website even gets a day in court. Many websites are run by small business owners who cannot afford the incredible legal fees they would incur just to get their site back up and running. These bills give the government the power to go in and shut down a website on the mere claim of an infringement. Does anyone really trust Barack Obama or Eric Holder with our free speech rights? Does anyone really trust them not to shut down sites they do not like? We must tell Congress under no circumstances should these bills ever be passed. The Internet has become and amazing place to share ideas and to exercise free speech. These bills would kill free speech on the Internet and must be stopped. Join us today. Sign this petition and tell Congress to keep its hands off of our free speech and keep its hand off the Internet. Forward this email to all of your friends and ask them to sign this petition as well. We take the Internet for granted and our rights of Free Speech for granted as well. Those rights must be protected or they will not be there for us to enjoy. Take a moment and sign our petition today! Visit Tea Party Nation at: http://www.teapartynation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network To control which emails you receive on Tea Party Nation, click here !DSPAM:2676,4f071a88217011556077088! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 12 00:39:01 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:09:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0E71F5.5000905@itforchange.net> Thanks Narine. Very Interesting article! In the non digital business world such levels of vertical integration (a very inadequate term in the present regard) would have called in considerable competition enforcing measures. However, in the essentially global digital industrial space, absence of global political devices to do the needful is clear. The only potent jurisdiction of US governance systems of course prioritizes the global financial and other gains for the US over enforcing competition and other public interest laws on the US based global digital industry, a clear instance of an acute 'political failure' (like, market failure) for the global society. Nonetheless, we all are increasingly subject to US laws. Laws of a country that distinguished itself in its political history with the slogan 'no taxation without representation' which can also be read as 'no legislation without representation'. Previous privacy missteps by both Google and Facebook resulted in both companies entering into settlements with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The FTC agreements require Google and Facebook to submit to external audits of their privacy practices every other year. These determinants of much of our online life - the contours of our knowledge (google) and the structure of our social relationships (facebook) do follow US diktats in their global operations, but hardly of any other political jurisdiction. We are facing an increasingly acute case of 'digital colonialism', and one keeps hoping that the global civil society, or at least the Southern civil society takes note of it and comes up with appropriate responses. Parminder On Thursday 12 January 2012 02:33 AM, Narine Khachatryan wrote: > > Dear all, > > Yesterday’s article in Huffington Post ‘Google 'Search Plus Your > World' Brings Google+ Into Search Results’ is for your information. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/google-search-plus-your-world_n_1196565.html > > > SAN FRANCISCO -- Google is sifting through the photos and commentary > on its blossoming social network so its Internet search results can > include more personal information. > > The additional personal touches that began to roll out Tuesday mark > another step toward one of Google's most ambitious goals. The Internet > search leader eventually hopes to know enough about each of its users > so it can tailor its results to fit the unique interests of each > person looking for something. > > Different people should start seeing different search results more > frequently now that Google Inc. is importing content from its > 6-month-old Plus service, a product that the company introduced in an > attempt to counter the popularity of Facebook's online hangout and > Twitter's short-messaging hub. Google's main search results page also > will start highlighting more content from an older online photo > service called Picasa. > > Other features will recommend additional people and companies to > follow on Plus, based on their search requests. Those suggestions will > exclude publicly accessible information about accounts on Facebook and > Twitter. > > The preferential treatment for Plus might amplify concerns about the > objectivity of Google's search results _a focal point of broad > regulatory investigations in the U.S. and Europe. > > The Federal Trade Commission, attorneys general in six states, and the > European Commission are looking into complaints alleging Google has > been unfairly exploiting its dominance in Internet search to promote > its other services while ignoring or downplaying pertinent information > about its rivals. > > The exclusive Plus recommendations in Google's search results are > "exactly the kind of thing that the antitrust people are screaming > about," said Danny Sullivan, an industry expert who has been following > Google since the 1990s and is now editor of SearchEngineLand.com. > "This is very un-Google like. It's unfair to other services and it's > unfair to people." > > Sullivan's criticism is especially striking because he has generally > defended other search features that highlight Google's own services. > > Twitter said it's worried the added emphasis on Plus in Google's > search results will make it more difficult to find breaking news and > other compelling information shared within the 250 million messages, > or tweets, posted on its service each day. > > "We think that's bad for people, publishers, news organizations and > Twitter users," Twitter said in a statement. > > Facebook didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. > > Google says its efforts to reel in more information from other sharing > services are frequently thwarted by the providers. For instance, > Twitter puts explicit instructions in its computer computing telling > Google not to index the material, according to Google. > > "Ushering in the new era of social and private data search will take > close cooperation, and we hope other sites participate so we can > provide the best possible experience for our users," Google said in a > statement issued after it was asked about its added emphasis on Plus > in its search results. > > Facebook and Twitter pose a threat to Google because they don't allow > Google's search engine to log most of the photos, links and > observations cascading through those services. That's troublesome to > Google because its search engine could become less useful if its > system can't analyze what people are signaling is important to them so > those preferences can be factored into the results. > > Twitter once gave Google better access to the tweets flowing through > its service as part of a 2009 licensing agreement, but that deal > expired last summer. Microsoft Corp.'s Bing search engine is still > paying to mine into Twitter's service. > > Facebook has long cooperated with Bing, partly because Microsoft > bought a 1.6 percent stake in the company in 2007. At the same time, > Facebook has steadfastly resisted Google's attempts to peer deeper > into its social network. > > That's one of the reasons Google started Plus, which is now hatching > "Search, plus Your World." > > The feature will be automatically turned on for all English-language > searches made by users logged into Google. Turning off the personal > results permanently will require changing a setting in Google's > personal preferences. The personal results can also be excluded on a > search-by-search basis by clicking on an icon of the globe on the > results page (the personal results will be denoted by a button > featuring a human's silhouette). > > If the new formula works as Google expects, the search results will > include pertinent information culled from the requestor's Plus > account. For instance, a query about the San Francisco 49ers might > include links and comments made about the football team by other > people in one of the social circles on the user's Plus account. A > search request that includes the name of a dog owned by the user or a > friend might turn up photos of the pet that have been posted on Plus > and Picasa. > > "This is going to open up a whole new avenue in search," said Ben > Gomes, a Google fellow. > > Google isn't the first to do this. Bing has been mining some of the > preferences and other information shared on Facebook since May. But > Google's emphasis on more personal results figures to attract more > attention because its search engine is so dominant. It handles about > two-thirds of the Internet search requests made in the U.S. while Bing > processes less than one-third, including the activity that it comes > through a partnership with Yahoo Inc. > > Facebook, though, has greater insights into personal tastes. That's > because its nearly 8-year-old social network boasts more than 800 > million users who share more than 1.5 billion photos alone each week. > In October, Google said Plus had more than 40 million users. Google > hasn't updated the information since then, although some external > studies have estimated Plus began the new year with 60 million to 70 > million users. > > The search changes Some of Google's changes may help prod more people > into joining Plus. > > As part of Tuesday's expansion, the profile pictures of Plus > accountholders will appear in the drop-down suggestions on Google's > search box. So when typing in "Mary," you may see those named Mary in > your circle along with those Google believes you'd find interesting. > > Searches on general topics such as "music" and "sports," will generate > suggestions on people and companies that have Plus accounts. Sullivan > considers this be unfair because some people might not have Plus > accounts, or share more interesting information on their Twitter page. > > While Google is hoping the addition of more personal results will make > its search engine even more useful, the changes also could spook some > people as they realize how much information is being compiled about > them. Google tried to minimize privacy concerns by recently switching > to technology that encrypts all its search results to protect the > information from slipping out. > > Previous privacy missteps by both Google and Facebook resulted in both > companies entering into settlements with the U.S. Federal Trade > Commission. The FTC agreements require Google and Facebook to submit > to external audits of their privacy practices every other year. > > Nariné Khachatryan > > Media Education Center > Yerevan, Armenia > http://www.immasin.am > http://www.safe.am/ > http://www.mediaeducation.am/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jan 12 01:06:33 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:36:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding support In-Reply-To: <377CBEED5D624A42B76ACE0B7BC6E0CB@UserVAIO> References: <377CBEED5D624A42B76ACE0B7BC6E0CB@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4F0E7869.1040504@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 11 January 2012 09:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > A couple of points about Izumi's statement... > > One very minor... There is I believe, a typo at the beginning of the third > paragraph... "We believe that his lack of support" should presumably be "We > believe that THIS lack of support", the former changing the sense and > personalizing the comment in an unfortunate and I'm assuming unintentional > way. > > The second is rather more fundamental. In certain recent statements (I'm > forgetting which ones) CS has not accepted the common UN etc. position of > funding "Developing Country" reps in favour of funding for civil society > representatives overall... > I agree all civil society representation, at least in committees etc, should be publicly funded. I did raise this point yesterday in informal discussions with Izumi. parminder > Many/most will realize that in these days of sometimes quite severe > financial cut-backs and a vast array of unsympathetic governments, CS folks > from developing countries may have equal difficulty in finding/allocating > funding for travel to these kinds of events and thus the process of > "exclusion" extends now to those from poorer DC's and from poorer > organizations/representatives overall within DC's. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:23 AM > To: Governance List > Subject: [governance] Civil Society participants statement on Funding > support > > > Dear all, > > Here follows and attached is the statement I read this morning on the lack > of travel support for CSTD WG participation. > > We will discuss this issue further when we reach the issue of IGF funding, > tomorrow. > > iz > > ---- > > Statement from civil society participants in the CSTD working group on IGF > improvements - Submitted to the 4th meeting of the working group, 11 January > 2012 > > On behalf of the civil society participants in this process we want to draw > your attention to a concern which we believe could have an impact on whether > this group succeeds or fails in achieving the goals mandated to it by > ECOSOC. > > On December 21 2011 civil society participants in the working group were > informed that the CSTD would not be able to provide financial support > towards the participation of civil society representatives from developing > countries in the working group's fourth meeting. After seeking clarification > from the Secretariat we were informed by Mr. Mongi Hamdi that the CSTD fund > for civil society participation can only be utilised by participants from > Least Developed Countries. Currently developing country participants in the > working group are from Brazil, India and South Africa and therefore none of > them qualify for support. Mr. Hamdi did clarify that this restriction is > imposed by the donor and not by the CSTD itself. > > We believe that his lack of support will have a negative impact on the > participation of civil society during this crucial last leg of the process. > Moreover, we want to emphasise that our concern extends beyond just the > participation of civil society; it raises fundamental questions about the > CSTD's commitment to and capacity to sustain multistakeholder participation > in all its processes. > > 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. As has > been stated in several submissions to the working group, 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. > > 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 believe this is > contrary to what we have all been trying to achieve through the IGF since > the Tunis Summit in 2005. > > Thus far the work of this CSTD working group could be well-synthesized by > the words "diversity" and "openness". In our discussion we have always > relied on a plurality of views to achieve synergy and to push us forward. We > want to commend all working group members, participants, and chairpersons, > for their commitment to this inclusive and open style of work. We also want > to to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the support from donors > who have made multistakeholder participation in the working group possible > up to this point. But at the same time we want to call attention to the fact > that such donations tend to be unpredictable. Civil society participation in > the IGF process (and indeed the participation of all other stakeholders from > developing countries who lack the necessary resources) cannot remain > dependent on unpredictable funding. We urge this group to discuss the > funding of the IGF in depth, including the financial support needed for > diverse and inclusive participation. > > 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. > > ---- > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jan 12 04:27:41 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:27:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo In-Reply-To: <4F0D9DA1.90305@apc.org> References: <4F0D9DA1.90305@apc.org> Message-ID: <1930316328.182598.1326360462224.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> Hello Anriette I agree that remote participation is a still a hurdle race for our friends in DCs ... even in BRICS :-) IMHO there are two lessons to be drawn from this situation : - it is far more effective to participate physically in a meeting even in the "Internet age" - WSIS organizers show an exagerated faith in Internet for considering remote participation as a viable means for CS in DCs to actually contribute to WSIS outcomes ... or they use remote participation for hiding their inability to finance the physical participation of qualified CS representatives (chosen by their orgs members). In any case CS should be more offensiive in this matter and oblige WSIS organizers to tackle this very important issue. This is also one of the recuurrent issues raised by Parminder on our list. Serious proposals were presented by Louis Pouzin during the open (WSIS Forum) prepatory meetings with the support of all CS participants present. Without any progress. CS cannot any longer put up with such a "black hole" in the WSIS process unless it is discredits itself. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France > Message du 11/01/12 15:33 > De : "Anriette Esterhuysen" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF 4th Meeting - 1st Memo > > Hi all... my attempt at being a remote participant is failing miserably. > This reminds me that: > > - internet speeds in South Africa are still generally pathetically slow > > - people who participate remotely in IGF processes deserve a HUGE amount > of respect for their patience during IGFs and open consultations. > > Audio is much better this afternoon.. so I remain hopeful. > > Thanks for the updates from those in Geneva. > > Best > > Anriette > > > On 11/01/12 16:09, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Guys, for the sake of clarity, just bear in mind that we are reporting > > roughly our own interpretation of what we hear/understand, ok? > > But you are right, valuable to explore further. It was a good point. > > M > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE > > > wrote: > > > > Wolfgang can explain the idea that suggested: > > > > "/- Wolfgang made ​​an important// point about the need to > > separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs > > and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of the > > observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more recently, > > by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie //these up"/ > > > > Just for a good understanding > > > > > > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > > > > skype : b.schombe > > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/1/11 Marilia Maciel > > > > > > > Some views to add to Izumi's memo: > > > > > > - Remote participation is working well for me. Audio is good > > (minor cuts) and I made a remote intervention. Not as fluid and > > interactive as onsite, so it has political implication on a > > meeting like this. But secretariat and members are really open > > to receive remote inputs. Anriette is having problems with > > audio, unfortunately. > > - The meeting started warm. Afterwards it improved in the > > discussion of point E on links between the IGF and other processes. > > - Some argued that these links mean that secretariat > > should do outreach and PR, and inform about the IGF. Others > > argued for stronger links to communicate IGF outcomes > > (convergences and divergences), especially with other > > organizations of the UN system, and ask them for feedback. > > - Time was spent to discuss competences of the executive > > coordinator of the IGF. Kind of pointless, imo, but maybe I > > could not get it well > > - Wolfgang made ​​an important point about the need to > > separate linkages with UN, with regional/national IGFs > > and with other organizations. I think he mentioned the idea of > > the observatory, which was ventilated before here and, more > > recently, by IBSA. Maybe it could be a way to tie these up > > - Some misunderstanding happened and it seems that the answers > > to the questions WG members asked about funding have not arrived > > yet. Maybe they will arrive later today, so the point about > > funding was postponed. > > - Now the group is on lunch breake. Too early for me, so I am on > > coffee breake. > > > > Best, > > M > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Izumi AIZU > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, from now on, i will not provide much details, as you can > > understand. But will share the summaries. > > > > > > After the wake-up discussion, we are entering into more > > substantive > > discussion on Linkage. > > > > Several similar ideas and proposals are discussed - > > > > Do not institutionalize too much > > Make two-way communication with other bodies > > > > Do not make IGF as if it is a decision making body. > > > > It is important to carry out Outreach. > > > > Who should "represent" IGF? Executive secretariat and > > Special Advisor > > or not - is now sort of being debated. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 Jan 12 04:29:29 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:29:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG Message-ID: CSTD IGF Working Group 4th meeting just began. There is preliminary proposal for a draft report, 9-page document with 52 bullet points, A to D are covered. There is separate paper on Point E, linking IGF, 3-pager. Our statement of lack of funding support is also printed and put on the table. It will be a long day, perhaps. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 06:28:31 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:28:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [JoCI] New Issue Published: Research in Action: Linking Communities and Universities Message-ID: This might be of interest to IGC colleagues and particularly note the final piece by Uden http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/880/810 which describes a very interesting project with a very significant initiating role by our colleague Avri. M The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest. Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training Vancouver CANADA Phone 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com The Journal of Community Informatics Special Issue: Research in Action: Linking Communities and Universities Table of Contents http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/38 Editorial -------- Research in Action for Community Informatics: A matter for conversation Matthew Allen, Marcus Foth Evolving Relationships: Universities, Researchers and Communities Michael Gurstein Articles -------- Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities: Imagining The Michigan State University Israelite Samaritan Collection as the Foundation for a Thriving Social Network Jim Ridolfo, William Hart-Davidson, Michael McLeod Visions, Participation and Engagement in New Community Information Infrastructures John M Carroll, Michael A. Horning, Blaine Hoffman, Craig H Ganoe, Harold R. Robinson, Mary Beth Rosson Research informing practice: Toward effective engagement in community ICT in New Zealand Barbara Craig, Jocelyn E. Williams Community-based learning: A model for higher education and community partnerships Peter Day DigiPopEd: Popular Education and Digital Culture Dan O'Reilly-Rowe Conducting ICT Research in Community Networks: Reflections from a Long Term Study of the European Social Forum Saqib Saeed, Markus Rohde, Volker Wulf Towards Participatory Action Design Research: Adapting Action Research and Design Science Research Methods for Urban Informatics Mark Bilandzic, John Venable Participant-Making: bridging the gulf between community knowledge and academic research Ann Light, Paul Egglestone, Tom Wakeford, Jon Rogers Notes from the field -------- Networking for Communications Challenged Communities: Report from a European project targeting conditions of poor or lacking ICT coverage Maria Kristina Udén ________________________________________________________________________ The Journal of Community Informatics http://www.ci-journal.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 06:50:17 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:50:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We are discussing about the Funding part. After the coffee break, Chengetai made some reporting of IGF budget areas. There is no system to accept small funds For private sector - they need “invoice”, but UN system does not issue invoices Nothing has been denied by UN DESA. Anything is possible if there is a political will. Donor meetings – had with open consultations and main meetings. Donors can’t say this or that – it is for all project as a whole. No more power with other stakeholders. Then Anriette made the following remarks remotely, and with her permission I am posting it here. Anriette Esterhuysen: My contribution: I support a mixed model of funding. I think that making the IGF responsible for raising its own funds can encourage a result-oriented approach to IGF management an implementation. However, for the IGF to have the capacity to raise the necessary resources it needs core capacity. I would like a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support as mentioned by the US (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. Ideally a 35% UN 65% voluntary funds in m view would give the IGF the financial sustainability it needs. It would also demonstrate UN ownership ad commitment without compromising the independence of the IGF. Overall I would like to see the IGF adopt a process of strategic management that involves annual action plans and budgets towards which donors and the UN contributes, with all information about these contributions published and made available to the IGF community on a regular basis. Swiss said they have no problem with transparency, and support ways to insure no interference. We hope to renew our contribution for 2012. Parminder is trying to explain his/our view - on public funding, with innovation, support Anrittte, but go with 60-40. Soon for lunch --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 07:24:53 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:24:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another thing that called my attention was that, according to official interpretation, the IGF is not part of the UN, it is a forum of the Secretary General. Therefore, UN funding would not be possible without a recommendation from the GA. According to what we heard/I understood, UN washed their hands and vividly encouraged the WG to look for ways for the IGF to get for money. I am not against voluntary contributions. We should encourage them, of course. But I think that stable funding has to be guaranteed to IGF core activities and to the participation of MAG members and speakers, especially those from developing countries, based on clear criteria of eligibility. And I think it is unfair that some UN rules are imposed to the IGF, weather we like it or not, but when it comes to being secured by UN, then IGF is just an appendix of the SG. So I made the following comment on the floor: Regardless of feasibility of public funding, I would like to support Parminder's request for a formal written explanation about on what grounds UN DESA is arguing that the IGF is not part of the UN. I think we should be cristal clear on the uderstanding of this, as it impacts the IGF in the future. We are always being told to abide by UN rules, even of matters that are dear to us and that maybe the IGF community would have a different view on how to proceed. I remember clearly that when was there was a launch of the book about freedom of expression, UN authorities showed up to forbid one advertisement that mentioned the name of a country, for instance. I mention this because it is a public, well-known fact. That seemed pretty awckward to us, but I think that people accepted, on the understanding that we had a two-way street relation with UN. I am thinking that maybe this relation with UN is assymetrical and that our responsabilities are not consistent with the support we have received Best, Marília On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We are discussing about the Funding part. > > After the coffee break, Chengetai made some reporting of IGF budget > areas. > > There is no system to accept small funds > For private sector - they need “invoice”, but UN system does not issue > invoices > > Nothing has been denied by UN DESA. > > Anything is possible if there is a political will. > Donor meetings – had with open consultations and main meetings. > Donors can’t say this or that – it is for all project as a whole. > No more power with other stakeholders. > > > Then Anriette made the following remarks remotely, and with her permission > I am posting it here. > > Anriette Esterhuysen: > > My contribution: I support a mixed model of funding. I think that > making the IGF responsible for raising its own funds can encourage a > result-oriented approach to IGF management an implementation. > > However, for the IGF to have the capacity to raise the necessary > resources it needs core capacity. I would like a model whereby the > SG's office provides > (1) in-kind support as mentioned by the US > (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. Ideally a 35% UN 65% > voluntary funds in m view would give the IGF the financial > sustainability it needs. > > It would also demonstrate UN ownership ad commitment without > compromising the independence of the IGF. Overall I would like to see > the IGF adopt a process of strategic management that involves annual > action plans and budgets towards which donors and the UN contributes, > with all information about these contributions published and made > available to the IGF community on a regular basis. > > Swiss said they have no problem with transparency, and support ways to > insure no interference. > We hope to renew our contribution for 2012. > > Parminder is trying to explain his/our view - on public funding, with > innovation, support Anrittte, but go with 60-40. > > > Soon for lunch > --- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 07:29:50 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:29:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: and the chair mentioned that civil society's statement on funding for developing nation WG members to be discussed after lunch (about 2 hours away). On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Another thing that called my attention was that, according to official > interpretation, the IGF is not part of the UN, it is a forum of the > Secretary General. Therefore, UN funding would not be possible without a > recommendation from the GA. According to what we heard/I understood, UN > washed their hands and vividly encouraged the WG to look for ways for the > IGF to get for money. > > I am not against voluntary contributions. We should encourage them, of > course. But I think that stable funding has to be guaranteed to IGF core > activities and to the participation of MAG members and speakers, especially > those from developing countries, based on clear criteria of eligibility. > And I think it is unfair that some UN rules are imposed to the IGF, weather > we like it or not, but when it comes to being secured by UN, then IGF is > just an appendix of the SG. So I made the following comment on the floor: > > Regardless of feasibility of public funding, I would like to support > Parminder's request for a formal written explanation about on what grounds > UN DESA is arguing that the IGF is not part of the UN. I think we should be > cristal clear on the uderstanding of this, as it impacts the IGF in the > future. We are always being told to abide by UN rules, even of matters that > are dear to us and that maybe the IGF community would have a different view > on how to proceed. I remember clearly that when was there was a launch of > the book about freedom of expression, UN authorities showed up to forbid > one advertisement that mentioned the name of a country, for instance. I > mention this because it is a public, well-known fact. That seemed pretty > awckward to us, but I think that people accepted, on the understanding that > we had a two-way street relation with UN. I am thinking that maybe this > relation with UN is assymetrical and that our responsabilities are not > consistent with the support we have received > > Best, > Marília > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> We are discussing about the Funding part. >> >> After the coffee break, Chengetai made some reporting of IGF budget >> areas. >> >> There is no system to accept small funds >> For private sector - they need “invoice”, but UN system does not issue >> invoices >> >> Nothing has been denied by UN DESA. >> >> Anything is possible if there is a political will. >> Donor meetings – had with open consultations and main meetings. >> Donors can’t say this or that – it is for all project as a whole. >> No more power with other stakeholders. >> >> >> Then Anriette made the following remarks remotely, and with her permission >> I am posting it here. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen: >> >> My contribution: I support a mixed model of funding. I think that >> making the IGF responsible for raising its own funds can encourage a >> result-oriented approach to IGF management an implementation. >> >> However, for the IGF to have the capacity to raise the necessary >> resources it needs core capacity. I would like a model whereby the >> SG's office provides >> (1) in-kind support as mentioned by the US >> (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. Ideally a 35% UN 65% >> voluntary funds in m view would give the IGF the financial >> sustainability it needs. >> >> It would also demonstrate UN ownership ad commitment without >> compromising the independence of the IGF. Overall I would like to see >> the IGF adopt a process of strategic management that involves annual >> action plans and budgets towards which donors and the UN contributes, >> with all information about these contributions published and made >> available to the IGF community on a regular basis. >> >> Swiss said they have no problem with transparency, and support ways to >> insure no interference. >> We hope to renew our contribution for 2012. >> >> Parminder is trying to explain his/our view - on public funding, with >> innovation, support Anrittte, but go with 60-40. >> >> >> Soon for lunch >> --- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briceabba at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 07:54:30 2012 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:54:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi All,Since Internet can be considered as a tool i agree with Vint CERT...in the same way even if "safety and resistance to oppression" is a human righthaving a weapon (tool) is not one... Regards, Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiquesmob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 From: kabani at isd-rc.org Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:28:21 +0500 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; gpaque at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR Ginger, and Friends, Thanks for sharing. Regards K On 5 January 2012 17:03, Ginger Paque wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212 Interesting opinion piece from Vint Cerf. I am copy/pasting it here for those who may not be able to access it: January 4, 2012 Internet Access Is Not a Human Right By VINTON G. CERF Reston, Va. FROM the streets of Tunis to Tahrir Square and beyond, protests around the world last year were built on the Internet and the many devices that interact with it. Though the demonstrations thrived because thousands of people turned out to participate, they could never have happened as they did without the ability that the Internet offers to communicate, organize and publicize everywhere, instantaneously. It is no surprise, then, that the protests have raised questions about whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. The issue is particularly acute in countries whose governments clamped down on Internet access in an attempt to quell the protesters. In June, citing the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a report by the United Nations’ special rapporteur went so far as to declare that the Internet had “become an indispensable tool for realizing a range of human rights.” Over the past few years, courts and parliaments in countries like France and Estonia have pronounced Internet access a human right. But that argument, however well meaning, misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it. The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information — and those are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time. Indeed, even the United Nations report, which was widely hailed as declaring Internet access a human right, acknowledged that the Internet was valuable as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. What about the claim that Internet access is or should be a civil right? The same reasoning above can be applied here — Internet access is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important — though the argument that it is a civil right is, I concede, a stronger one than that it is a human right. Civil rights, after all, are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings. While the United States has never decreed that everyone has a “right” to a telephone, we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right, because ensuring access is a policy made by the government. Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights. In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online. That means, for example, protecting users from specific harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers. Technologists should work toward this end. It is engineers — and our professional associations and standards-setting bodies like the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers — that create and maintain these new capabilities. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise. Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right. Vinton G. Cerf, a fellow at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, is a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google. Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 07:56:26 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:56:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ps: there is a very interesting parallel discussion going on online between non-gov participants about how much we should "zoom" our recommendations in order to be effective but, at the same time, avoid micromanaging. We are also discussing a possible structure for the report. I think it is a positive exchange that "brakes the ice" that seemed to exist regarding online collaboration. The continuation of this collaboration will be very important if we do not manage to conclude the work at this meeting, and need another one in Feb, as initially predicted by the chair. Marilia On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > and the chair mentioned that civil society's statement on funding for > developing nation WG members to be discussed after lunch (about 2 hours > away). > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Another thing that called my attention was that, according to official >> interpretation, the IGF is not part of the UN, it is a forum of the >> Secretary General. Therefore, UN funding would not be possible without a >> recommendation from the GA. According to what we heard/I understood, UN >> washed their hands and vividly encouraged the WG to look for ways for the >> IGF to get for money. >> >> I am not against voluntary contributions. We should encourage them, of >> course. But I think that stable funding has to be guaranteed to IGF core >> activities and to the participation of MAG members and speakers, especially >> those from developing countries, based on clear criteria of eligibility. >> And I think it is unfair that some UN rules are imposed to the IGF, weather >> we like it or not, but when it comes to being secured by UN, then IGF is >> just an appendix of the SG. So I made the following comment on the floor: >> >> Regardless of feasibility of public funding, I would like to support >> Parminder's request for a formal written explanation about on what grounds >> UN DESA is arguing that the IGF is not part of the UN. I think we should be >> cristal clear on the uderstanding of this, as it impacts the IGF in the >> future. We are always being told to abide by UN rules, even of matters that >> are dear to us and that maybe the IGF community would have a different view >> on how to proceed. I remember clearly that when was there was a launch of >> the book about freedom of expression, UN authorities showed up to forbid >> one advertisement that mentioned the name of a country, for instance. I >> mention this because it is a public, well-known fact. That seemed pretty >> awckward to us, but I think that people accepted, on the understanding that >> we had a two-way street relation with UN. I am thinking that maybe this >> relation with UN is assymetrical and that our responsabilities are not >> consistent with the support we have received >> >> Best, >> Marília >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> We are discussing about the Funding part. >>> >>> After the coffee break, Chengetai made some reporting of IGF budget >>> areas. >>> >>> There is no system to accept small funds >>> For private sector - they need “invoice”, but UN system does not issue >>> invoices >>> >>> Nothing has been denied by UN DESA. >>> >>> Anything is possible if there is a political will. >>> Donor meetings – had with open consultations and main meetings. >>> Donors can’t say this or that – it is for all project as a whole. >>> No more power with other stakeholders. >>> >>> >>> Then Anriette made the following remarks remotely, and with her >>> permission >>> I am posting it here. >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen: >>> >>> My contribution: I support a mixed model of funding. I think that >>> making the IGF responsible for raising its own funds can encourage a >>> result-oriented approach to IGF management an implementation. >>> >>> However, for the IGF to have the capacity to raise the necessary >>> resources it needs core capacity. I would like a model whereby the >>> SG's office provides >>> (1) in-kind support as mentioned by the US >>> (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. Ideally a 35% UN 65% >>> voluntary funds in m view would give the IGF the financial >>> sustainability it needs. >>> >>> It would also demonstrate UN ownership ad commitment without >>> compromising the independence of the IGF. Overall I would like to see >>> the IGF adopt a process of strategic management that involves annual >>> action plans and budgets towards which donors and the UN contributes, >>> with all information about these contributions published and made >>> available to the IGF community on a regular basis. >>> >>> Swiss said they have no problem with transparency, and support ways to >>> insure no interference. >>> We hope to renew our contribution for 2012. >>> >>> Parminder is trying to explain his/our view - on public funding, with >>> innovation, support Anrittte, but go with 60-40. >>> >>> >>> Soon for lunch >>> --- >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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 > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Jan 12 11:30:20 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 01:30:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sorry for not reporting much - still around the Funding - back and forth. The proposal Parminder (and us) made to bring UN regular budget in addition to existing funding model did not gain the support from governments except Sri Lanka. We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC and LDCs, and also get more stability of IGF, but US, business, and also South Africa did not like bringing in UN body too much attached to IGF. SA is considering there is no hope for other governments to change position, though. Now we are entering into the budget discussion, be there at MAG (or not) etc. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 12:00:15 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:00:15 -0800 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG Message-ID: Is this below the "official" policy of the IGC i.e. that those from Developed Countries without access to financial support for participation in the MAG (i.e. those NOT supported by a major NGO, a highly endowed university or private means) will be, because of this informal means test, excluded from participation in the MAG). Could I ask when this position was discussed and agreed to by our caucus? Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM To: Marilia Maciel Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG .... We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC and LDCs, 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Jan 12 12:10:16 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:10:16 +0900 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First, I don't think seeking support for MAG participation is mutually exclusive with support from NGOs, in reality, but as a matter of principle we are trying to make a case the need for stable support. We had no capacity to discuss this with the list, yes, but that does not mean we did not want to. But, all five members from Civil society are expected to act on their own behalf, and there is not rule that we have to consult every proposal with IGC list, unless we make IGC statement. I hope you understand this. And welcome any comments anytime, I will do our best to accomodate them. izumi 2012/1/13 michael gurstein : > Is this below the "official" policy of the IGC i.e. that those from > Developed Countries without access to financial support for participation in > the MAG (i.e. those NOT supported by a major NGO, a highly endowed > university or private means) will be, because of this informal means test, > excluded from participation in the MAG). > > Could I ask when this position was discussed and agreed to by our caucus? > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Marilia Maciel > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG > > .... > > We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC and > LDCs, > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 12:22:12 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:22:12 -0800 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E26F54E3E5A4367B1C667873B1EDD36@UserVAIO> Thanks for the reply Izumi. I understand the constraints of participation in these events and perhaps there was no expectation that the issue of funding would be re-opened in this way (withdrawal of funding support to non-LDC reps) but perhaps we could take this occasion to discuss and find some consensus on this most important issue. We should also note that this is somewhat time sensitive since it may influence decisions/individual judgements with respect to our "nominations" for IGC participation on the new MAG. M -----Original Message----- From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 9:10 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG First, I don't think seeking support for MAG participation is mutually exclusive with support from NGOs, in reality, but as a matter of principle we are trying to make a case the need for stable support. We had no capacity to discuss this with the list, yes, but that does not mean we did not want to. But, all five members from Civil society are expected to act on their own behalf, and there is not rule that we have to consult every proposal with IGC list, unless we make IGC statement. I hope you understand this. And welcome any comments anytime, I will do our best to accomodate them. izumi 2012/1/13 michael gurstein : > Is this below the "official" policy of the IGC i.e. that those from > Developed Countries without access to financial support for > participation in the MAG (i.e. those NOT supported by a major NGO, a > highly endowed university or private means) will be, because of this > informal means test, excluded from participation in the MAG). > > Could I ask when this position was discussed and agreed to by our > caucus? > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Marilia Maciel > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG > > .... > > We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC > and LDCs, > > 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 > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jan 12 12:25:07 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Brice Abba wrote: > Hi All, > Since Internet can be considered as a tool i agree with Vint CERT... > in the same way even if "safety and resistance to oppression" is a human > right > having a weapon (tool) is not one... > So then one may have a right of self-defense, but no right to use "tools" of any kind (no right to use weapons, rocks, pepper spray, locked doors, etc) One may have a right of free speech, but no right to use "tools" in its furtherance. (no right to use typewriters, internet, loudspeakers or radio or tv access) One may have a right to life but no right to use "tools" in furtherance of life. (no right to use medicines, doctors, herbal remedies, or books containing knowledge about life...) The idea that one may sever the "tools" to utilize or enjoy a right from the right itself completely destroys the right, in principle. I have previously posted that whether or not a person has a right to exercise a right by a particular "tool" depends on things OTHER THAN the fact that something is a tool by which one exercises the right. For just one example, it depends on whether other meaningful avenues exist to exercise the right. Take "tools" away from human beings and you've reduced them to the status of naked animals, perhaps with the addition of verbal language. But without tools to disseminate the verbal language, a human is in a form of communication exile, akin to talking only to one's self or perhaps a tiny number of people in one's physical presence. After all, an auditorium with a lectern or a loudspeaker or leaflets are all "tools" of communication. Some would like to say that the "tools" one uses to exercise a right are frozen in time and don't include "modern" tools. This could limit self-defense to hands only, and speech could be confined to the home and perhaps the streetcorner. Once again, whether a modern "tool" is protectable as a means to exercise a right depends not on its status as a "tool" or a "technology" but on how prevalent the tool is, how important for the meaningful exercise of the right, and the availability of alternative channels for exercise of the right that are at least approximately equal in effectiveness. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 12 12:40:09 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:40:09 +0200 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0F1AF9.4080408@apc.org> Greetings all.. end of another frustrating day from the remote participation point of view.. although better than yesterday. Thanks to Izumi for frequent updates on Skype, and also to the technical community participants in the group who are tweeting quite actively. In general the spirit of the day was more constructive but overall it feels as if reluctance to make recommendations that will require work/effort/money/process changes prevails. Chengetai presented IGF finances very clearly which was helpful. One back issue that impacted on the discussion of finances is the role of the MAG, and whether it should have any oversight responsibilities or not. Tomorrow they will discuss funding and finance further and aim to agree on text. Anriette On 12/01/12 19:00, michael gurstein wrote: > Is this below the "official" policy of the IGC i.e. that those from > Developed Countries without access to financial support for participation in > the MAG (i.e. those NOT supported by a major NGO, a highly endowed > university or private means) will be, because of this informal means test, > excluded from participation in the MAG). > > Could I ask when this position was discussed and agreed to by our caucus? > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Marilia Maciel > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG > > .... > > We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC and > LDCs, > > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briceabba at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 15:30:57 2012 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:30:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: ,,, Message-ID: Hi all, we should separate HUMAN RIGHT to A RIGHT TO,In some states in USA "HAVING A WEAPON IS A RIGHT" does it mean that this is a HUMAN RIGHT ? I'm not against the fact that INTERNET could be considered as a HUMAN RIGHT but since it's a toolthat could be complicated... Let's consider the freedom of expression:If i have not an internet access i can use a mobile phoneIf i have not a mobile phone i can use an Off phone (fixed)If i have not an off phone i can right a letter... This is to say that to express this right " freedom of expression" i'have many tools I HAVE THE CHOICE... the smoke was even used by Indians (America) in the past to communicate... Let consider Internet:If i have not an internet access HOW CAN I EXPRESS THIS RIGHT ? TROUBLE... Some countries can consider INTERNET ACCESS as a RIGHT but as a "HUMAN RIGHT" that will be complicated Regards, Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiquesmob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:07 -0500 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; briceabba at hotmail.com CC: gpaque at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Brice Abba wrote: Hi All,Since Internet can be considered as a tool i agree with Vint CERT...in the same way even if "safety and resistance to oppression" is a human right having a weapon (tool) is not one... So then one may have a right of self-defense, but no right to use "tools" of any kind (no right to use weapons, rocks, pepper spray, locked doors, etc) One may have a right of free speech, but no right to use "tools" in its furtherance. (no right to use typewriters, internet, loudspeakers or radio or tv access) One may have a right to life but no right to use "tools" in furtherance of life. (no right to use medicines, doctors, herbal remedies, or books containing knowledge about life...) The idea that one may sever the "tools" to utilize or enjoy a right from the right itself completely destroys the right, in principle. I have previously posted that whether or not a person has a right to exercise a right by a particular "tool" depends on things OTHER THAN the fact that something is a tool by which one exercises the right. For just one example, it depends on whether other meaningful avenues exist to exercise the right. Take "tools" away from human beings and you've reduced them to the status of naked animals, perhaps with the addition of verbal language. But without tools to disseminate the verbal language, a human is in a form of communication exile, akin to talking only to one's self or perhaps a tiny number of people in one's physical presence. After all, an auditorium with a lectern or a loudspeaker or leaflets are all "tools" of communication. Some would like to say that the "tools" one uses to exercise a right are frozen in time and don't include "modern" tools. This could limit self-defense to hands only, and speech could be confined to the home and perhaps the streetcorner. Once again, whether a modern "tool" is protectable as a means to exercise a right depends not on its status as a "tool" or a "technology" but on how prevalent the tool is, how important for the meaningful exercise of the right, and the availability of alternative channels for exercise of the right that are at least approximately equal in effectiveness. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briceabba at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 16:54:03 2012 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:54:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR In-Reply-To: References: ,,, Message-ID: Hi all, we should separate HUMAN RIGHT to A RIGHT TO,In some states in USA "HAVING A WEAPON IS A RIGHT" does it mean that this is a HUMAN RIGHT ? I'm not against the fact that INTERNET could be considered as a HUMAN RIGHT but since it's a toolthat could be complicated... Let's consider the freedom of expression:If i have not an internet access i can use a mobile phoneIf i have not a mobile phone i can use an Off phone (fixed)If i have not an off phone i can write a letter... This is to say that to express this right " freedom of expression" i'have many tools I HAVE THE CHOICE... the smoke was even used by Indians (America) in the past to communicate... Let consider Internet:If i have not an internet access HOW CAN I EXPRESS THIS RIGHT ? TROUBLE... Some countries can consider INTERNET ACCESS as a RIGHT but as a "HUMAN RIGHT" that will be complicated Regards, Brice ABBA Ingénieur en Sciences Informatiquesmob: (+225)-08-607-228 fix(home): (+225)-23-512-912 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:25:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [governance] NYT opinion by Vint Cerf: Internet Access is not a HR From: lehto.paul at gmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; briceabba at hotmail.com CC: gpaque at gmail.com On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Brice Abba wrote: Hi All,Since Internet can be considered as a tool i agree with Vint CERT...in the same way even if "safety and resistance to oppression" is a human right having a weapon (tool) is not one... So then one may have a right of self-defense, but no right to use "tools" of any kind (no right to use weapons, rocks, pepper spray, locked doors, etc) One may have a right of free speech, but no right to use "tools" in its furtherance. (no right to use typewriters, internet, loudspeakers or radio or tv access) One may have a right to life but no right to use "tools" in furtherance of life. (no right to use medicines, doctors, herbal remedies, or books containing knowledge about life...) The idea that one may sever the "tools" to utilize or enjoy a right from the right itself completely destroys the right, in principle. I have previously posted that whether or not a person has a right to exercise a right by a particular "tool" depends on things OTHER THAN the fact that something is a tool by which one exercises the right. For just one example, it depends on whether other meaningful avenues exist to exercise the right. Take "tools" away from human beings and you've reduced them to the status of naked animals, perhaps with the addition of verbal language. But without tools to disseminate the verbal language, a human is in a form of communication exile, akin to talking only to one's self or perhaps a tiny number of people in one's physical presence. After all, an auditorium with a lectern or a loudspeaker or leaflets are all "tools" of communication. Some would like to say that the "tools" one uses to exercise a right are frozen in time and don't include "modern" tools. This could limit self-defense to hands only, and speech could be confined to the home and perhaps the streetcorner. Once again, whether a modern "tool" is protectable as a means to exercise a right depends not on its status as a "tool" or a "technology" but on how prevalent the tool is, how important for the meaningful exercise of the right, and the availability of alternative channels for exercise of the right that are at least approximately equal in effectiveness. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 01:21:20 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:51:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] India to block Social Networks "like China" Message-ID: The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites can be "blocked" like in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable material from their web pages. "Like China, we will block all such websites," Justice Suresh Kait said while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism to keep a check on and remove "offensive and objectionable" material from their web pages. The two companies had moved the High Court seeking a stay on summons issued to them by a Delhi trial court that is hearing a private criminal complaint against them. Justice Kait did not stay the proceedings against the two websites before the magistrate's court. The case comes up for hearing at the lower court today. Former Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Google India, said the postings of "obscene, objectionable and defamatory" articles and other things cannot be "filtered" or "monitored". "No human interference is possible, and moreover, it can't be feasible to check such incidents. Billions of people across the globe, post their articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be checked," Mr Rohatgi said. He tried to distinguish between Google India and its US-based holding company Google Inc. "The US-based Google Inc is the service provider and not me (Google India) and hence, we are not liable for the action of my holding company. Moreover, it is a criminal case where a vicarious liability can be fastened on a company which has no role, whatsoever, in the alleged offence," the lawyer argued. Citing provisions of the Information Technology Act, the counsel for Google India said these websites are protected by the law in respect of such "objectionable" material so far as they are not the authors. The websites, he said, may lose that legal protection if they either modify or monitor an article or comments or fail to deal with the complaints of an affected person or the government on such issues. More at http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/can-block-websites-like-china-delhi-high-court-warns-facebook-google-166383 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 13 04:12:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:12:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] India to block Social Networks "like China" [Day 2 in Delhi Courts] Message-ID: Thanks Siva, I read your post with much interest and also the link. I also noticed that an update has been made some 40 minutes ago. Today's updates can be found here: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 Sala On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook > India and search engine Google India that websites can be "blocked" like in > China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable > material from their web pages. > > "Like China, we will block all such websites," Justice Suresh Kait said > while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism > to keep a check on and remove "offensive and objectionable" material from > their web pages. > > The two companies had moved the High Court seeking a stay on summons > issued to them by a Delhi trial court that is hearing a private criminal > complaint against them. Justice Kait did not stay the proceedings against > the two websites before the magistrate's court. The case comes up for > hearing at the lower court today. > > Former Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Google > India, said the postings of "obscene, objectionable and defamatory" > articles and other things cannot be "filtered" or "monitored". > > "No human interference is possible, and moreover, it can't be feasible to > check such incidents. Billions of people across the globe, post their > articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be > checked," Mr Rohatgi said. > > He tried to distinguish between Google India and its US-based holding > company Google Inc. "The US-based Google Inc is the service provider and > not me (Google India) and hence, we are not liable for the action of my > holding company. Moreover, it is a criminal case where a vicarious > liability can be fastened on a company which has no role, whatsoever, in > the alleged offence," the lawyer argued. > > Citing provisions of the Information Technology Act, the counsel for > Google India said these websites are protected by the law in respect of > such "objectionable" material so far as they are not the authors. The > websites, he said, may lose that legal protection if they either modify or > monitor an article or comments or fail to deal with the complaints of an > affected person or the government on such issues. > > More at > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/can-block-websites-like-china-delhi-high-court-warns-facebook-google-166383 > > Sivasubramanian M > ISOC India Chennai > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > http://internetstudio.in/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 Fri Jan 13 04:57:34 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:57:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 Message-ID: We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on Point C, on Funding. We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host countries, etc. After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part of funding from UN regular budget, not much new things are being explored. We may have coffee break soon. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 05:09:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:09:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi and Team. All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow them on #CSTD Best, Sala On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. > > Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on Point C, on Funding. > > We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host countries, etc. > After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part of funding > from UN regular budget, not much new things are being explored. > > We may have coffee break soon. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 05:37:21 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:37:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually the # is #CSTDWG :) On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Izumi and Team. > > All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow them on > #CSTD > > Best, > Sala > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. >> >> Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on Point C, on >> Funding. >> >> We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host countries, etc. >> After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part of funding >> from UN regular budget, not much new things are being explored. >> >> We may have coffee break soon. >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jan 13 05:40:57 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:40:57 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Kieran collects it: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: Izumi AIZU Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 Actually the # is #CSTDWG :) On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Thanks Izumi and Team. All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow them on #CSTD Best, Sala On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on Point C, on Funding. We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host countries, etc. After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part of funding from UN regular budget, not much new things are being explored. We may have coffee break soon. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 05:49:57 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:49:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The collection is valuable. Thanks should go to Kieran. Nevertheless, a constructive criticism would be that the way the tweets were gathered yesterday, supporting paragraphs with personal opinion, created a biased narrative, imo. For the sake of clarity, I would just appreciate if colleagues read my tweets with that in mind, as I do not necessarily share the opinions of the author on the topics. M 2012/1/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Kieran collects it: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel > Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cc: Izumi AIZU > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 > > > Actually the # is #CSTDWG > :) > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Izumi and Team. > > All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow > them on #CSTD > > Best, > Sala > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which > meant 10 sharp. > > Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on > Point C, on Funding. > > We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host > countries, etc. > After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part > of funding > from UN regular budget, not much new things are being > explored. > > We may have coffee break soon. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 13 06:03:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:03:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks for correcting the #CTSDWG and perhaps it would be good to have a storyboard so we can see the diverse perspectives and allow people to form their opinions on the matter. 2012/1/13 Marilia Maciel > The collection is valuable. Thanks should go to Kieran. Nevertheless, a > constructive criticism would be that the way the tweets were gathered > yesterday, supporting paragraphs with personal opinion, created a biased > narrative, imo. For the sake of clarity, I would just appreciate if > colleagues read my tweets with that in mind, as I do not necessarily share > the opinions of the author on the topics. > M > > > 2012/1/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Kieran collects it: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel >> Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cc: Izumi AIZU >> Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 >> >> >> Actually the # is #CSTDWG >> :) >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks Izumi and Team. >> >> All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow >> them on #CSTD >> >> Best, >> Sala >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >> We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which >> meant 10 sharp. >> >> Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on >> Point C, on Funding. >> >> We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host >> countries, etc. >> After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make >> part of funding >> from UN regular budget, not much new things are being >> explored. >> >> We may have coffee break soon. >> >> izumi >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 06:09:29 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:09:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Also, people should bear in mind that there was never clear guidelines on if we could tweet or not, if we could share the names of who says what or not. As a consequence, some members chose not to tweet, or to tweet essential things and not to narrate the meeting. This is understandable, I think. I would personally add to that that that for non-English speakers, to follow the meeting and to tweet is sometimes to much to cope with, so better to stay focus on proceedings. That happens to me sometimes :) 2012/1/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Thanks for correcting the #CTSDWG and perhaps it would be good to have a > storyboard so we can see the diverse perspectives and allow people to form > their opinions on the matter. > > > 2012/1/13 Marilia Maciel > >> The collection is valuable. Thanks should go to Kieran. Nevertheless, a >> constructive criticism would be that the way the tweets were gathered >> yesterday, supporting paragraphs with personal opinion, created a biased >> narrative, imo. For the sake of clarity, I would just appreciate if >> colleagues read my tweets with that in mind, as I do not necessarily share >> the opinions of the author on the topics. >> M >> >> >> 2012/1/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >> >>> Kieran collects it: >>> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two >>> >>> w >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel >>> Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 >>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cc: Izumi AIZU >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 >>> >>> >>> Actually the # is #CSTDWG >>> :) >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks Izumi and Team. >>> >>> All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow >>> them on #CSTD >>> >>> Best, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>> >>> We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 >>> which meant 10 sharp. >>> >>> Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on >>> Point C, on Funding. >>> >>> We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host >>> countries, etc. >>> After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make >>> part of funding >>> from UN regular budget, not much new things are being >>> explored. >>> >>> We may have coffee break soon. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To 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.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Jan 13 06:16:45 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:16:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4F10129D.1060904@apc.org> Agree with Marilia on this. The Twitter feed gives a little taste of what is going on, no more. Anriette On 13/01/12 13:09, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Also, people should bear in mind that there was never clear guidelines > on if we could tweet or not, if we could share the names of who says > what or not. As a consequence, some members chose not to tweet, or to > tweet essential things and not to narrate the meeting. This is > understandable, I think. I would personally add to that that that for > non-English speakers, to follow the meeting and to tweet is sometimes to > much to cope with, so better to stay focus on proceedings. That happens > to me sometimes :) > > 2012/1/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Thanks for correcting the #CTSDWG and perhaps it would be good to > have a storyboard so we can see the diverse perspectives and allow > people to form their opinions on the matter. > > > 2012/1/13 Marilia Maciel > > > The collection is valuable. Thanks should go to Kieran. > Nevertheless, a constructive criticism would be that the way the > tweets were gathered yesterday, supporting paragraphs with > personal opinion, created a biased narrative, imo. For the sake > of clarity, I would just appreciate if colleagues read my tweets > with that in mind, as I do not necessarily share the opinions of > the author on the topics. > M > > > 2012/1/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > Kieran collects it: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org > im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel > Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cc: Izumi AIZU > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 > > > Actually the # is #CSTDWG > :) > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > Thanks Izumi and Team. > > All: I also note that we have people twitting and you > can follow them on #CSTD > > Best, > Sala > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU > > wrote: > > > We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to > start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. > > Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis > document on Point C, on Funding. > > We are discussing how to attract donors, > satisfy host countries, etc. > After given No to bring new proposal of > trying to make part of funding > from UN regular budget, not much new things > are being explored. > > We may have coffee break soon. > > izumi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on > the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, > see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Jan 13 06:27:49 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:27:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4F101535.90807@apc.org> It is helpful... but I don't feel that Kieran's headline is such a good reflection of what is happening. You write great headlines Kieran...but I would say this one is a bit over the top :) "CSTDWG discussions collapse in fight over money" Anriette On 13/01/12 12:49, Marilia Maciel wrote: > The collection is valuable. Thanks should go to Kieran. Nevertheless, a > constructive criticism would be that the way the tweets were gathered > yesterday, supporting paragraphs with personal opinion, created a biased > narrative, imo. For the sake of clarity, I would just appreciate if > colleagues read my tweets with that in mind, as I do not necessarily > share the opinions of the author on the topics. > M > > > 2012/1/13 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > Kieran collects it: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im > Auftrag von Marilia Maciel > Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cc: Izumi AIZU > Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 > > > Actually the # is #CSTDWG > :) > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > Thanks Izumi and Team. > > All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can > follow them on #CSTD > > Best, > Sala > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU > wrote: > > > We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 > which meant 10 sharp. > > Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document > on Point C, on Funding. > > We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host > countries, etc. > After given No to bring new proposal of trying to > make part of funding > from UN regular budget, not much new things are being > explored. > > We may have coffee break soon. > > izumi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 06:41:21 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:41:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet Message-ID: Religiously objectionable material on the internet *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci * The following report from India[1]has reached me: “ *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case centres on a petition filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate summoned the executives of 21 companies and suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy*.” If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is the Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement section” of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each * advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers are all-powerful “foreign devils”. But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another one. In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf of privacy rights of third parties*. - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into a * novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described as “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels would no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of buildings it has photographed. A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not asked to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings untrammeled by offensive images. Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection extends, beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very notion that this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless he actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as conflict over private rights. The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on demand*– in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under the right. The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. * PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to have a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. ------------------------------ [1] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 -------------- 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 apisan at unam.mx Fri Jan 13 09:11:01 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:11:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D655A76@W8-EXMB-V20.unam.local> Wolfgang, do you know if this collection is behind the 1,000 dollar/year paywall like your article on keeping the Internet open? It seems important to keep an independently-curated collection. Marilia and Anriette are totally right as to bias and headlines as well. I will deplore together with Marilia the lack of clear guidelines like Chatham House rules at the meeting. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] en nombre de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 04:40 Hasta: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro CC: Izumi AIZU Asunto: AW: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 Kieran collects it: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two w ________________________________ Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Marilia Maciel Gesendet: Fr 13.01.2012 11:37 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: Izumi AIZU Betreff: Re: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 Actually the # is #CSTDWG :) On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Thanks Izumi and Team. All: I also note that we have people twitting and you can follow them on #CSTD Best, Sala On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: We started 10:10 am, though Chair said to start 9:30 which meant 10 sharp. Anyway, secretariat provided the synthesis document on Point C, on Funding. We are discussing how to attract donors, satisfy host countries, etc. After given No to bring new proposal of trying to make part of funding from UN regular budget, not much new things are being explored. We may have coffee break soon. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 13 09:18:59 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:18:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D655A76@W8-EXMB-V20.unam.local> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D655A76@W8-EXMB-V20.unam.local> Message-ID: I have no time reading it now, but am not feel that comfortable in two ways. I have been trying to "report" what is going on on this list, but tried to avoid naming specific names/entities unless it looks OK. I am not sure if we should have the Chatham rule, but it is better to have some kind of rule. To me the content of the collection does not capture the whole views. Which is natural but,,, izumi 2012/1/13 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > Wolfgang, > > do you know if this collection is behind the 1,000 dollar/year paywall like your article on keeping the Internet open? > > It seems important to keep an independently-curated collection. Marilia and Anriette are totally right as to bias and headlines as well. > > I will deplore together with Marilia the lack of clear guidelines like Chatham House rules at the meeting. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  . >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >  Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . >waechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 04:40 > Hasta: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > CC: Izumi AIZU > Asunto: AW: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 > > Kieran collects it: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two > > w > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 13 14:35:23 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:35:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D655A76@W8-EXMB-V20.unam.local> Message-ID: Grateful if I could get Marilia or Anriette together to polish the reports so that they can be uploaded on our website so that we can easily follow what's happening on the site. When the Team (Wolfgang, Izumi, Parminder, Anriette and Marilia) have agreed that the Report genuinely reflects things happening on the ground at the CSTDWG from your perspectives we can post it to show your perspective on the matter. Let me know. Best Regards, Sala On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I have no time reading it now, but am not feel that comfortable in two > ways. > > I have been trying to "report" what is going on on this list, but > tried to avoid naming specific names/entities unless it looks OK. > > I am not sure if we should have the Chatham rule, but it is better to > have some kind of rule. > > To me the content of the collection does not capture the whole views. > Which is natural but,,, > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/1/13 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > > Wolfgang, > > > > do you know if this collection is behind the 1,000 dollar/year paywall > like your article on keeping the Internet open? > > > > It seems important to keep an independently-curated collection. Marilia > and Anriette are totally right as to bias and headlines as well. > > > > I will deplore together with Marilia the lack of clear guidelines like > Chatham House rules at the meeting. > > > > Yours, > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > > > > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . > >waechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 04:40 > > Hasta: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel; > governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > CC: Izumi AIZU > > Asunto: AW: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 > > > > Kieran collects it: > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two > > > > w > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 15:21:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 08:21:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for stating that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the *strict criteria* under international human rights law". He went on to discuss at great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of the Report which can be found here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf La Rue was very careful to say the following:- *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, cumulative test: * * * *(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); * *(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and* * (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application."* * * Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing has been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is reported in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in the District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful stay in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on "obscene publications". In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the Petition but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is true) fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how Courts all over the world have defined "publication". The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various philosophies that lie behind any decision making process. It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc Sala On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Religiously objectionable material on the internet > > *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci > * > > > > > The following report from India[1]has reached me: “ > *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook > India and search engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like in > China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable > material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case centres on a petition > filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene > depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu > deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate summoned the executives of 21 > companies and suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy*.” > > If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before the > Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility > of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is > transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: > > - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is the > Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block > postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and > remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. > - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement section” > of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each * > advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. > > Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived > feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the > Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off > easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers > are all-powerful “foreign devils”. > > But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another one. > In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) > censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar > cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf of > privacy rights of third parties*. > > - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into a * > novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described as > “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named > neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest > such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in > France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory > material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that > Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels would > no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. > - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap > has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of > buildings it has photographed. > > A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not asked > to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but > ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai > and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings > untrammeled by offensive images. > > Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection extends, > beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very notion that > this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not see the > offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless he > actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, > protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the > enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as > conflict over private rights. > > The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the > state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on > demand* – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, > then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under > the right. > > The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in > the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified > building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to > pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside > justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). > A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so > Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. > > The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between > the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular > relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private > right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the > circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. > > Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it > will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as > white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the > “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial > nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the > official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to > sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary > principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the > content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to > shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. > > * > > PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to have > a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. > ------------------------------ > > [1] > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 16:01:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:01:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] sopa-authors-own-website-violated-copyright Message-ID: http://www.newser.com/story/137422/sopa-authors-own-website-violated-copyrig ht.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 13 16:23:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:23:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] sopa-authors-own-website-violated-copyright In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was very amusing reading and certainly brings home the point that advocates against SOPA have been making. On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://www.newser.com/story/137422/sopa-authors-own-website-violated-copyrig > ht.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Jan 13 21:26:08 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:26:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] DNS Blocking out of SOPA Message-ID: <4F10E7C0.6020801@cis-india.org> One small step forward, though the battle is still far far from over. - Pranesh http://goo.gl/AjAxI Smith to Remove DNS Blocking from SOPA Washington, Jan 13 - House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today said he plans to remove a provision in the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) that requires Internet Service Providers to block access to certain foreign websites. Chairman Smith: “After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision. We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers. “Current law protects the rights of American innovators by prohibiting the illegal sale and distribution of their products by domestic websites. But there is no equivalent protection for American companies from foreign online criminals who steal and sell American goods to consumers around the world. Congress must address the widespread problem of online theft of America’s technology and products from foreign thieves. “The Stop Online Piracy Act cuts off the flow of revenue to these foreign illegal sites and makes it harder for online criminals to market and distribute illegal products to U.S. consumers. The bill maintains provisions that ‘follow the money’ and cut off the main sources of revenue to foreign illegal sites. It also continues to protect consumers from being directed to foreign illegal websites by search engines. And it provides innovators with a way to bring claims against foreign illegal sites that steal and sell their technology, products and intellectual property. “American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while some of America’s most profitable and productive industries are under attack. The Stop Online Piracy Act protects the products and jobs that rightly belong to American innovators.” The bill is supported by more than 120 businesses and associations from around the country including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Sheriffs’ Association, International Union of Police Associations, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, the National Songwriters Association and the National Center for Victims of Crime. More information about the Stop Online Piracy Act can be found at: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Fri Jan 13 22:51:50 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:51:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Salanieta for the insightful answer. It has helped me better focus on th issue. I trust you'll stay on top of this and provide us with better and better context. The intersting question here is whether this is an instance under (2.i) - protect the rights or reputation of others. The line apparently taken by Mr Raj is that the mere *existence* or presence of offensive material on the net affects his "rights". He can cruise the net as long as he wants whitout these pictures imposing themselves on him - unless he deliberately clicks the offensive site. Mere awareness is enough. This is the line taken by the Swiss High Court, when it said that one is entitled to walk about unencumbered by awareness that an activity of which the person disapproves, may take place inside a building along his path. It is an awesome extension of the "right to privacy". We all enjoy - or suffer - a social identity. Social identities are impersonal. Social identities are thrust upon us either directly (as in prejudice), or indirectly - what STEELE calls "social contingencies" - situations which will remind an individual of his "social identity" and induce him to behave in certain ways. Social identities will either sustain, or hinder our self-affirmation (the sense we have of ourselves(. In practice soccial identities are a "mixed bag" - some good, some bad. They are existential to all of us, BTW, and when the social identity becomes totally bad, the person withers away. The line of argument above goes in the direction of saying that the "right to be left alone" includes the right to be and feel free of social identity and social contingencies. This is akin to "social burqua". If I'm adept of the "telephone book religion" no one is even allowed to think poorly of my belief, let alone snicker about it to some friends. I tend to disagree on your definition of "open site". "Open" is only something that I cannot avoid, or which is collateral to my going about my normal life. I'd have a right, it seems to me, not to have explicit adverts for sexuals favours appear on the right side of my eMail as I go about my correspondence. These adverts are thrust upon me irrespective of my will. Everything else is merely "accessible" and subject to my willful choice. I can exercise my choice in ways that avoid contact with material that is offensive to me. Best regards to Fiji last time I was there I saw Comm. Bainimarama play touch football across the street of Holiday Inn - it was his first day in power... Again, thanks Aldo On 13 January 2012 21:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for stating > that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the *strict > criteria* under international human rights law". He went on to discuss at > great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of the > Report which can be found here: > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf > > > La Rue was very careful to say the following:- > > *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an > exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, > cumulative test: * > * > * > *(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to > everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); * > *(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph > 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: > (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect > national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of > legitimacy); and* > * (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means > required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity > and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to > freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any > political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is > neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate > safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy > against its abusive application."* > * > * > Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing > has been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is > reported in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in > the District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful > stay in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on > "obscene publications". > > In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the Petition > but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is true) > fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how Courts > all over the world have defined "publication". > > The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an > intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking > sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various > philosophies that lie behind any decision making process. > > It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if > someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can > try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc > > Sala > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci > wrote: > >> Religiously objectionable material on the internet >> >> *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci >> * >> >> >> >> >> The following report from India[1]has reached me: “ >> *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook >> India and search engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like in >> China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable >> material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case centres on a petition >> filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene >> depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu >> deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate summoned the executives of 21 >> companies and suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy*.” >> >> If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before >> the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility >> of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is >> transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: >> >> - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is the >> Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block >> postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and >> remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. >> - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement >> section” of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each >> *advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. >> >> Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived >> feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the >> Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off >> easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers >> are all-powerful “foreign devils”. >> >> But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another one. >> In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) >> censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar >> cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf of >> privacy rights of third parties*. >> >> - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into a >> *novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described as >> “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named >> neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest >> such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in >> France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory >> material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that >> Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels >> would no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. >> - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap >> has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of >> buildings it has photographed. >> >> A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not asked >> to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but >> ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai >> and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings >> untrammeled by offensive images. >> >> Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection >> extends, beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very >> notion that this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not >> see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless >> he actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, >> protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the >> enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as >> conflict over private rights. >> >> The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the >> state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on >> demand* – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, >> then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under >> the right. >> >> The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in >> the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified >> building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to >> pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside >> justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). >> A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so >> Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. >> >> The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between >> the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular >> relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private >> right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the >> circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. >> >> Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it >> will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as >> white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the >> “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial >> nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the >> official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to >> sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary >> principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the >> content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to >> shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. >> >> * >> >> PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to >> have a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. >> ------------------------------ >> >> [1] >> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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 > > > > -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 13 23:33:30 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:33:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C915@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D655A76@W8-EXMB-V20.unam.local> Message-ID: Dear list, The WG meeting ended some 13 hours ago, and sorry for not reporting how we ended. There was good amount of debate about C, Funding of IGF, and sometimes it related to the MAG function etc. Ideas to explore innovative ways of funding was suggested and it became some "homework", among others. We ended at 6 pm on time, as Chair indicated to wrap-up around 5:30 pm, with general agreement of what we agreed and what we did not agree with on Point C, Funding of IGF. The secretariat will produce rolling document, and the Chair will make his Summary Report of this 4th meeting, publish it asap, that will become the base document of our 5th and final meeting to be held on Feb 20-22 in Geneva. I asked the Chair for him to report the status of the work of this WG at the next MAG open consultation meeting on Feb 14-16, and also to collect reactions from the MAG meetings, that will be fed to our WG meeting and he generally agreed. Others also asked how we proceed to February, but also to CSTD meeting in May. The Chair said that he will present the Recommendations (Report of the WG), together with the Chair's report. As for the "report" Sala asked, I am not sure if we can get together to make one realistically, and am not comfortable doing so in the context of the discussion about the collection of tweets/outside report - and Chatham Rule thing. I stop here. Thanks, izumi 2012/1/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Grateful if I could get Marilia or Anriette together to polish the reports > so that they can be uploaded on our website so that we can easily follow > what's happening on the site. When the Team (Wolfgang, Izumi, Parminder, > Anriette and Marilia) have agreed that the Report genuinely reflects things > happening on the ground at the CSTDWG from your perspectives we can post it > to show your perspective on the matter. > > Let me know. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> I have no time reading it now, but am not feel that comfortable in two >> ways. >> >> I have been trying to "report" what is going on on this list, but >> tried to avoid naming specific names/entities unless it looks OK. >> >> I am not sure if we should have the Chatham rule, but it is better to >> have some kind of rule. >> >> To me the content of the collection does not capture the whole views. >> Which is natural but,,, >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/1/13 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : >> > Wolfgang, >> > >> > do you know if this collection is behind the 1,000 dollar/year paywall >> > like your article on keeping the Internet open? >> > >> > It seems important to keep an independently-curated collection. Marilia >> > and Anriette are totally right as to bias and headlines as well. >> > >> > I will deplore together with Marilia the lack of clear guidelines like >> > Chatham House rules at the meeting. >> > >> > Yours, >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty >> > >> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  . >> >  . >> >     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> > >> > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 >> > >> > *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> > *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> > *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> > *Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> >  Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org >> > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . >> >  .  . >> >waechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de enero de 2012 04:40 >> > Hasta: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel; >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > CC: Izumi AIZU >> > Asunto: AW: [governance] CSTD IGF WG - Day 3 >> > >> > Kieran collects it: >> > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/01/12/cstdwg-day-two >> > >> > w >> > >> > > > > > > -- > 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 02:43:22 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:13:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: India to block Social Networks "like China" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, An update: * * * * *19 other sites, apart from Facebook and Google face prosecution for 'hosting offensive content':* * * Granting sanction to prosecute 21 social networking websites, including Facebook and Google, the Union government on Friday said there was sufficient material to proceed against them for offences of promoting enmity between different groups of people. They are “doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony” and hosting content that is “provocative, assertive and propagates prejudicial to national integration (sic),” it said. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2798837.ece * * * * On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook > India and search engine Google India that websites can be "blocked" like in > China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable > material from their web pages. > > "Like China, we will block all such websites," Justice Suresh Kait said > while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism > to keep a check on and remove "offensive and objectionable" material from > their web pages. > > The two companies had moved the High Court seeking a stay on summons > issued to them by a Delhi trial court that is hearing a private criminal > complaint against them. Justice Kait did not stay the proceedings against > the two websites before the magistrate's court. The case comes up for > hearing at the lower court today. > > Former Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Google > India, said the postings of "obscene, objectionable and defamatory" > articles and other things cannot be "filtered" or "monitored". > > "No human interference is possible, and moreover, it can't be feasible to > check such incidents. Billions of people across the globe, post their > articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be > checked," Mr Rohatgi said. > > He tried to distinguish between Google India and its US-based holding > company Google Inc. "The US-based Google Inc is the service provider and > not me (Google India) and hence, we are not liable for the action of my > holding company. Moreover, it is a criminal case where a vicarious > liability can be fastened on a company which has no role, whatsoever, in > the alleged offence," the lawyer argued. > > Citing provisions of the Information Technology Act, the counsel for > Google India said these websites are protected by the law in respect of > such "objectionable" material so far as they are not the authors. The > websites, he said, may lose that legal protection if they either modify or > monitor an article or comments or fail to deal with the complaints of an > affected person or the government on such issues. > > More at > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/can-block-websites-like-china-delhi-high-court-warns-facebook-google-166383 > > 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 03:07:09 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:07:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: India to block Social Networks "like China" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: right, they are taking the ordre public tack different story this is also a hell of a problem for internet because is has such "firestorm" capabilties. We'd punish someone crying "fire" in a crowded theatre why not do the same for the net? Aldo On 14 January 2012 08:43, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello, > > An update: > * > * > * > * > *19 other sites, apart from Facebook and Google face prosecution for > 'hosting offensive content':* > * > * > Granting sanction to prosecute 21 social networking websites, including > Facebook and Google, the Union government on Friday said there was > sufficient material to proceed against them for offences of promoting > enmity between different groups of people. > > They are “doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony” and > hosting content that is “provocative, assertive and propagates prejudicial > to national integration (sic),” it said. > > http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2798837.ece > * > * > * > * > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook >> India and search engine Google India that websites can be "blocked" like in >> China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable >> material from their web pages. >> >> "Like China, we will block all such websites," Justice Suresh Kait said >> while asking counsel for Facebook and Google India to develop a mechanism >> to keep a check on and remove "offensive and objectionable" material from >> their web pages. >> >> The two companies had moved the High Court seeking a stay on summons >> issued to them by a Delhi trial court that is hearing a private criminal >> complaint against them. Justice Kait did not stay the proceedings against >> the two websites before the magistrate's court. The case comes up for >> hearing at the lower court today. >> >> Former Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Google >> India, said the postings of "obscene, objectionable and defamatory" >> articles and other things cannot be "filtered" or "monitored". >> >> "No human interference is possible, and moreover, it can't be feasible to >> check such incidents. Billions of people across the globe, post their >> articles on the website. Yes, they may be defamatory, obscene but cannot be >> checked," Mr Rohatgi said. >> >> He tried to distinguish between Google India and its US-based holding >> company Google Inc. "The US-based Google Inc is the service provider and >> not me (Google India) and hence, we are not liable for the action of my >> holding company. Moreover, it is a criminal case where a vicarious >> liability can be fastened on a company which has no role, whatsoever, in >> the alleged offence," the lawyer argued. >> >> Citing provisions of the Information Technology Act, the counsel for >> Google India said these websites are protected by the law in respect of >> such "objectionable" material so far as they are not the authors. The >> websites, he said, may lose that legal protection if they either modify or >> monitor an article or comments or fail to deal with the complaints of an >> affected person or the government on such issues. >> >> More at >> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/can-block-websites-like-china-delhi-high-court-warns-facebook-google-166383 >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> ISOC India Chennai >> http://isocindiachennai.org >> >> >> facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG >> LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s >> Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a >> http://internetstudio.in/ >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sat Jan 14 07:55:45 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:55:45 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003b01ccd2bb$d9ed8100$8dc88300$@uol.com.br> Nothing is more offensive to any human “rights” than extreme poverty, and everybody walks through people in the streets, begging, hungry, in several parts of the world and I don´t see people complain for their rights! To not see these poor people they choose another path to walk. Why not do the same in internet? De: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Aldo Matteucci Enviada em: sábado, 14 de janeiro de 2012 01:52 Para: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jovan KURBALJA Assunto: Re: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet Thanks Salanieta for the insightful answer. It has helped me better focus on th issue. I trust you'll stay on top of this and provide us with better and better context. The intersting question here is whether this is an instance under (2.i) - protect the rights or reputation of others. The line apparently taken by Mr Raj is that the mere existence or presence of offensive material on the net affects his "rights". He can cruise the net as long as he wants whitout these pictures imposing themselves on him - unless he deliberately clicks the offensive site. Mere awareness is enough. This is the line taken by the Swiss High Court, when it said that one is entitled to walk about unencumbered by awareness that an activity of which the person disapproves, may take place inside a building along his path. It is an awesome extension of the "right to privacy". We all enjoy - or suffer - a social identity. Social identities are impersonal. Social identities are thrust upon us either directly (as in prejudice), or indirectly - what STEELE calls "social contingencies" - situations which will remind an individual of his "social identity" and induce him to behave in certain ways. Social identities will either sustain, or hinder our self-affirmation (the sense we have of ourselves(. In practice soccial identities are a "mixed bag" - some good, some bad. They are existential to all of us, BTW, and when the social identity becomes totally bad, the person withers away. The line of argument above goes in the direction of saying that the "right to be left alone" includes the right to be and feel free of social identity and social contingencies. This is akin to "social burqua". If I'm adept of the "telephone book religion" no one is even allowed to think poorly of my belief, let alone snicker about it to some friends. I tend to disagree on your definition of "open site". "Open" is only something that I cannot avoid, or which is collateral to my going about my normal life. I'd have a right, it seems to me, not to have explicit adverts for sexuals favours appear on the right side of my eMail as I go about my correspondence. These adverts are thrust upon me irrespective of my will. Everything else is merely "accessible" and subject to my willful choice. I can exercise my choice in ways that avoid contact with material that is offensive to me. Best regards to Fiji last time I was there I saw Comm. Bainimarama play touch football across the street of Holiday Inn - it was his first day in power... Again, thanks Aldo On 13 January 2012 21:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for stating that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the strict criteria under international human rights law". He went on to discuss at great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of the Report which can be found here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf La Rue was very careful to say the following:- "As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application." Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing has been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is reported in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in the District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful stay in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on "obscene publications". In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the Petition but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is true) fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how Courts all over the world have defined "publication". The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various philosophies that lie behind any decision making process. It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc Sala On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: Religiously objectionable material on the internet Posted on January 13, 2012 by Aldo Matteucci The following report from India[1] has reached me: “The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and remove objectionable material from their web pages.” (…) “The case centres on a petition filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate summoned the executives of 21 companies and suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy.” If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the responsibility of the provider (of the transmission support) for the content that is transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: * Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the mail. Is the Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. * Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement section” of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each advertisement? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers are all-powerful “foreign devils”. But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another one. In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar cases, however, appear to refer to Government involvement on behalf of privacy rights of third parties. * “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into a novel – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described as “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that Baudelaire’s quip: “pauvre Belgique” or Zola’s social novels would no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. * A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of buildings it has photographed. A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not asked to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings untrammeled by offensive images. Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection extends, beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very notion that this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless he actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as conflict over private rights. The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the state censor religiously offensive material – which is available on demand – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under the right. The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. * PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to have a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. _____ [1] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and 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 -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jan 14 09:04:50 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:04:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: RES: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: <003b01ccd2bb$d9ed8100$8dc88300$@uol.com.br> (vanda@uol.com.br) References: <003b01ccd2bb$d9ed8100$8dc88300$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <20120114140450.9F36B15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Vanda UOL wrote: > Nothing is more offensive to any human "rights" than extreme > poverty, and everybody walks through people in the streets, begging, > hungry, in several parts of the world and I don't see people > complain for their rights! When traveling in such a place I have witnessed the police addressing this issue by chasing these extremely poor people away, without any respect whatsoever for their dignity as humans. It seems to me that somehow there is a lesson in this about the need to make sure that relatively minor inconveniences must not be addressed in ways that are worse than the original problem. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jan 14 10:23:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 07:23:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Donny Shaw Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! To: On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: Share on Twitter Share on FB Thank You! -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew To unsubscribe, go to: http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jan 14 12:11:11 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:11:11 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: <20120114140450.9F36B15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <003b01ccd2bb$d9ed8100$8dc88300$@uol.com.br> <20120114140450.9F36B15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4F11B72F.9020107@cafonso.ca> Incidentally, chasing poor people away and beating them is what the São Paulo police is doing right now, in what they call a "cleansing" operation against street crack victims, an operation which they officially named "Pain and Suffering" (similarly to Bush's "Shock and Awe", mind you). This in richest city of the 6th world economy... []s fraternos --c.a. On 01/14/2012 12:04 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Vanda UOL wrote: > >> Nothing is more offensive to any human "rights" than extreme >> poverty, and everybody walks through people in the streets, begging, >> hungry, in several parts of the world and I don't see people >> complain for their rights! > > When traveling in such a place I have witnessed the police addressing > this issue by chasing these extremely poor people away, without any > respect whatsoever for their dignity as humans. > > It seems to me that somehow there is a lesson in this about the need > to make sure that relatively minor inconveniences must not be > addressed in ways that are worse than the original problem. > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 14 20:41:50 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:41:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: This just in: Obama puts SOPA on pause Message-ID: <42853A0A997A49248BF71829415C3AF0@UserVAIO> http://ct.techrepublic.com/clicks?t=1116143197-6d0bee25f1f62d049a797cfceaf73 1f3-bf&brand=TECHREPUBLIC&s=5 [snip] "Below are 4 passages that the White House has emphasized with bold text in the response: Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy." [big snip] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 14 21:26:45 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:26:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > > > The intersting question here is whether this is an instance under (2.i) - > protect the rights or reputation of others. > The second limb or test that you were referring to in La Rue’s Report refers to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which reads:- *Article 19* 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. 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: 1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. (Underling and highlighting for emphasis are mine). Inherent within this Article is the notion that rights are not absolute. What is clear from this is that there is a sense or an express insinuation of "duties and responsibilities". I am of course thinking of what the drafters had in mind as they put these together and I can think of a number of illustrations some fiction and others hypotheticals:- - Consider Iran which holds the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to be banned from entering Iran because it is their belief that it is offensive and an assault to their religious freedoms; - Consider Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code and the subsequent movie created from the book; There are many ways to perceive this situation. One is that Salman Rushdie and Da Vinci have the freedom and right to freely express himself in any shape or form. However there are those who may subscribe to views (usually religious views) who may feel offended from the type of material that is disseminated. For some the material may be too offensive and as such consider it their mission to speak out or to address the matter through protests, reforms etc. This is probably why you have laws that prohibit "obscene publications". The laws against obscene publications exist out of concern of the rights and respect for others. To use an "extreme" illustration, imagine a first tiered law firm where the Partners were interviewing people to hire as Associates, they would all be properly dressed in suits or formal wear and not in bikinis and slippers etc. In other words there is always a context - there is a place where you are free to dress as you please and in other environments social consciousness and unwritten codes demand that people act, dress or behave in a certain manner. There are some airports around the world that will not let you in if your shorts are above your knee. The point I am trying to illustrate is that rights are not void of responsibilities especially where these affects others. Determining the limitations of these is something that societies consciously (through Judgments in court or laws) or subconsciously constantly engage in. In Article 19 of the ICCPR highlights the limitations as those that are provided by law. In this instance, that is Vinay Rai's Petition as per the article, it appears that India has laws against obscene publications. So the crux of the matter would be whether the material is "obscene" in the eyes of the Courts in Delhi. > The line apparently taken by Mr Raj is that the mere *existence* or > presence of offensive material on the net affects his "rights". He can > cruise the net as long as he wants whitout these pictures imposing > themselves on him - unless he deliberately clicks the offensive site. > I am not taking Vinay Rai's side but am trying to understand where his petition is coming from. I am guessing that he holds the view that just as nation states can control products and services that enter India through Customs and Excise Authorities through international trade instruments, in the form of border control, that likewise India can determine the degree and nature of content that is accessible to the masses in India. Countries decide all the time what is allowed in and out of their country and in some instances there are contrabands where systems are stringent. Of course in the discussions on internet governance there are all kinds of debates and discussions from diverse perspectives. What are the various lenses within regulation of the internet should be viewed:- 1. Is it self-regulating? 2. Should it be regulated nationally? 3. Should it be regulated internationally? > > I tend to disagree on your definition of "open site". "Open" is only > something that I cannot avoid, or which is collateral to my going about my > normal life. I'd have a right, it seems to me, not to have explicit adverts > for sexuals favours appear on the right side of my eMail as I go about my > correspondence. These adverts are thrust upon me irrespective of my will. > Everything else is merely "accessible" and subject to my willful choice. I > can exercise my choice in ways that avoid contact with material that is > offensive to me. > I see where you are coming from. I don't hold strong views on the same just enjoy deconstructing and reconsructing ideas and seeing the rationale behind positions. > > Best regards to Fiji > last time I was there I saw Comm. Bainimarama play touch football across > the street of Holiday Inn - it was his first day in power... > Assuming this was the 6th December 2006 I was in Court during the State v Rabuka matter and remember witnessing the Judges committment to affirming the rule of law. Much has happened since and regards to your country as well. > > Best Regards from Fiji, > Sala > > On 13 January 2012 21:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for stating >> that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the *strict >> criteria* under international human rights law". He went on to discuss >> at great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of >> the Report which can be found here: >> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf >> >> >> La Rue was very careful to say the following:- >> >> *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an >> exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, >> cumulative test: * >> * >> * >> *(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to >> everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); * >> *(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph >> 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely: >> (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect >> national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of >> legitimacy); and* >> * (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means >> required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity >> and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to >> freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any >> political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is >> neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate >> safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy >> against its abusive application."* >> * >> * >> Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing >> has been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is >> reported in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in >> the District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful >> stay in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on >> "obscene publications". >> >> In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the >> Petition but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is >> true) fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how >> Courts all over the world have defined "publication". >> >> The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an >> intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking >> sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various >> philosophies that lie behind any decision making process. >> >> It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if >> someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can >> try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc >> >> Sala >> >> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci < >> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Religiously objectionable material on the internet >>> >>> *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The following report from India[1]has reached me: “ >>> *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site >>> Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites can be >>> “blocked” like in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and >>> remove objectionable material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case >>> centres on a petition filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who >>> referred to obscene depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet >>> Mohammed, and various Hindu deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate >>> summoned the executives of 21 companies and suggested they face trial for >>> criminal conspiracy*.” >>> >>> If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before >>> the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility >>> of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is >>> transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: >>> >>> - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is the >>> Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC block >>> postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check and >>> remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. >>> - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement >>> section” of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each >>> *advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. >>> >>> Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived >>> feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the >>> Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off >>> easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers >>> are all-powerful “foreign devils”. >>> >>> But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another >>> one. In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) >>> censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar >>> cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf of >>> privacy rights of third parties*. >>> >>> - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into >>> a *novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described >>> as “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named >>> neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest >>> such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in >>> France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory >>> material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that >>> Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels >>> would no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. >>> - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where GoogleMap >>> has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in front of >>> buildings it has photographed. >>> >>> A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not >>> asked to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but >>> ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai >>> and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings >>> untrammeled by offensive images. >>> >>> Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection >>> extends, beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very >>> notion that this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not >>> see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless >>> he actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, >>> protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the >>> enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as >>> conflict over private rights. >>> >>> The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the >>> state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on >>> demand* – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, >>> then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall under >>> the right. >>> >>> The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal in >>> the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified >>> building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to >>> pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside >>> justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). >>> A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so >>> Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. >>> >>> The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between >>> the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular >>> relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private >>> right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the >>> circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. >>> >>> Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it >>> will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as >>> white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the >>> “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial >>> nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the >>> official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to >>> sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary >>> principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the >>> content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to >>> shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. >>> >>> * >>> >>> PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to >>> have a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and 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 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Jan 15 02:22:37 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:22:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from developing economies in the new gTLD program Message-ID: <1326612157.96198.yint-ygo-j2me@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> We have also submitted some concerns about Application Support Program for new gTLDs. Comments on New gTLD ASP - Financial Assistance for DgEc - (v2) http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook/msg00015.html Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 6:57 PM PKT Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>Dear Izumi and Avri, thanks for reminding for comments.>>Call for the public comments for the Financial Assistance Policy is the>consequence to the previous submitted comments on the "JAS WG Second>Milestone Report". MyTLD & UISoc contributions are being reflected in the>report published by JAS WG:>“http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg-second-milesto>ne-report-18oct11-en.pdf”.>>JAS WG Final report was published for comments on 13 Oct and comments period>closed on 19th Dec.>>Now it is required that the following Financial Assistance Handbook, Support>Criteria and Process:> Draft Financial Assistance Handbook:>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-financial-assistance-handbook>-20dec11-en.pdf> Support Criteria:>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support-criteria-10>dec11-en.pdf> Support Process:>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-applicant-support-process-10d>ec11-en.pdf >May please be evaluated by on the basis (grounds) of previously submitted>comments of MyTLD & UISoc as mentioned in the report:> >http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-jaswg-second-mileston>e-report-18oct11-en.pdf >>If someone from the CS IGC can help me to draft a quick review comparison>during this weekend, it will be helpful to submit response within given>timeframe. The communities from least/under developed economies will be>highly appreciated. Individuals may also contact me off-the-list if>required.>>Thanking you,>>Best Regards>>Imran Ahmed Shah>>>>> -----Original Message----->> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On>> Behalf Of Izumi AIZU>> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 05:56 PM>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria>> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN and Applicant Support for applicant from>> developing economies in the new gTLD program>> >> Thank you Avri for sharing this important information. It's a pity that we>as>> IGC does not seem to have sufficient time for our own comment, but I also>> want to encourage each member or like-minded members to consider>> submission.>> >> izumi>> >> >> 2012/1/6 Avri Doria :>> > hi,>> >>> > Carlos sending the pointer to the NTIA letter reminded me that IGC>> sometimes takes an interest in ICANN issues beyond the meta issue of>> ICANN being allowed to exist at all.>> >>> > On a slightly different note, the ICANN Board has responded to the>> recommendation made by the Applicant Support WG that has been>> requesting support for applicants from developing economies with a>> program of support for such applicants.>> >>> > This program is currently open to public comment until 10 Jan. While I>am>> sure there is not enough time for the IGC to comment, some individual>> participants of this list or members of the IGC may want to comment. The>> information can be found at: > comment/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook-20dec11-en.htm> and the>> comment period ends on 10 Jan.>> >>> > Some initial comments from the group that made the recommendations>> can>> > be found at:>> > > > ort+Implementation>>> >>> >>> avri________________________________________________________>> ____>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org>> > To be removed from the list, visit:>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >>> > For all other list information and functions, see:>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>> >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> >>> >> >> >> -->> > 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>>>____________________________________________________________>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:> governance at lists.cpsr.org>To be removed from the list, visit:> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>For all other list information and functions, see:> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jan 14 07:56:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:26:02 +0530 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F117B62.4010306@itforchange.net> On Thursday 12 January 2012 10:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Is this below the "official" policy of the IGC i.e. that those from > Developed Countries without access to financial support for participation in > the MAG (i.e. those NOT supported by a major NGO, a highly endowed > university or private means) will be, because of this informal means test, > excluded from participation in the MAG). > > Could I ask when this position was discussed and agreed to by our caucus? > I reiterate what I said a couple of days back in response to Mike's email that I am of the view that 'all' civil society participants to MAG and such bodies/ committees etc must be financially supported. parminder > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:30 AM > To: Marilia Maciel > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG > > .... > > We tried to emphasis the need for supporting the participation from DC and > LDCs, > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jan 15 07:00:19 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:00:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: Funding for CSO participation (was Re: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG) In-Reply-To: <4F117B62.4010306@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:26:02 +0530) References: <4F117B62.4010306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120115120019.EB5E215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > I reiterate what I said a couple of days back in response to Mike's > email that I am of the view that 'all' civil society participants to MAG > and such bodies/ committees etc must be financially supported. I'm strongly in support of this view. Last year the Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance Mapping (see http://idgovmap.org/ ) has conducted an online survey on the topic "Public Interest Representation in Information Society" to which 134 survey responses were received, from civil society organizations (CSOs) and self-identified individual public interest representatives. One of the questions that we asked in the survey was: "What are the three biggest problems for civil society at large in coordinating its participation in institutions of governance in the information society?" The breakdown of responses is as follows: No coordinating framework or process: 26 Poor communication between CSOs: 30 Too many institutions to cover: 20 Forum shifting to bypass CSOs: 19 Disagreements within civil society: 14 Decline of multi-stakeholderism: 11 Lack of funding for participation: 47 Other: 5 >From the perspective of the overall perception of the survey respondents (and that is probably as close to reliable truth as one can get on this question), lack of funding for participation is clearly the single biggest obstacle. It prevents people and entire stakeholder groups from being heard. The consequence is that their problems, view, concerns and perspectives will not be taken into consideration until this problem has been solved. Greetings, Norbert. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jan 15 09:59:14 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:59:14 +0800 Subject: Funding for CSO participation (was Re: FW: [governance] Re: Day 2 - CSTD IGF WG) In-Reply-To: <20120115120019.EB5E215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4F117B62.4010306@itforchange.net> <20120115120019.EB5E215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 15/01/2012, at 8:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Last year the Dynamic Working Coalition for Internet Governance > Mapping (see http://idgovmap.org/ ) has conducted an online survey > on the topic "Public Interest Representation in Information Society" > to which 134 survey responses were received, from civil society > organizations (CSOs) and self-identified individual public interest > representatives. As an aside, a paper on the results of the survey has just been completed by Norbert and will be made available free online soon. The anonymised raw survey results are also freely available for others to delve into. Already one other scholar (Elena Pavan) is analysing the same data with a different approach. So thanks to all those who participated! -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sun Jan 15 12:03:08 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:03:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] No to censorship : Food for thought and call to action Message-ID: Dear Lists, Find below for your info and to see the need to support no censorship of content for the Internet by whatever means. Sea ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "ZAO Olunuga" Date: 14 Jan 2012 16:11 Subject: Fwd: Fw: Food for thought and call to action To: "Bolanle Adefuye" , "Olutayo Alebiosu" < dralechristo at gmail.com>, , , , , < bldr.oyekunleamoda at yahoo.com>, , , , , , < dday1uk at yahoo.co.uk>, , , < dejavu2001a at yahoo.com>, , < francanthony at yahoo.com>, , < greatgk2007 at yahoo.com>, , < hayuordejj17 at gmail.com>, , < ifigueroa at officedepot.com>, , , , , , < kayodeademola at rocketmail.com>, , , "Ozioma Nwokorie" , "Taiwo Odumosu" , "Tokunbo Olunuga" , "olunuga omolade" < olunuga.omolade at yahoo.com>, , , , , , < pixelgoldprod at yahoo.com>, , , < pixelgoldprod at gmail.com>, , , , , "Sonigitu Ekpe" < sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng>, , < tayoadelaja2003 at yahoo.co.uk>, , < tomilola272 at yahoo.co.uk>, , , ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 13 January 2012 16:04 Subject: Fw: Food for thought and call to action To: labopopoola at yahoo.com, olugbenga Ayannuga , ZAO Olunuga ** Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. ------------------------------ *From: *sade ogunsola *Date: *Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:49:08 +0100 *To: * *Cc: *Abimbola Olu; Ade Adeosun; Adebiyi Wole; Adebolajo Adeyemo; Adedapo K.S.; adefemi afolabi; Adegbenro Adeyemo; Adegboyega Akere< adeakere at yahoo.co.uk>; Adekunbi Banjo; kunle ayinmode; Ademowo George; Aderonke Adegbola; Adewunmi Adeoye; afalade33 at hotmail.com; duduyemi; Balogun W.A.; Bimpe Gbadeyan; Clement Abu-Okolo; Funsho Adeyemi< fazdee2001 at yahoo.com>; Fagbamiye E.O; Faniran moses< pastorkay11 at yahoo.com>; Fasanmade A.; Fehintola F.< fentolamine at yahoo.com>; fmabbiyesuku at yahoo.co.uk; f_ogunbiyi at yahoo.com; Franklin; Catherine Falade; Oludotun J.S.O< jso.oludotun at gmail.com>; Olufunke Oluwatoba; < papakute at yahoo.co.uk>; Remi Kehinde *Subject: *Food for thought and call to action This is worth reading! Friday, January 6, 2012 The Oily Affairs of a Profligate Nation *I have read and watched several arguments pervading the public domain since the announcement of the removal of the fuel subsidy. I have been very circumspect in pitching my tent during these turbulent times. However, it is clear that all Nigerians are justifiably angry. By Nigerians I refer to the majority of people who have their own hands in their own pockets! * *Despite the fervent uproar that heralded this unpopular government policy, some things have been achieved. What amazes me is the speed at which these two things have been achieved:* *First, the truth is coming out concerning the mono-trade that props-up our nation. Veiled behind contrasting facts, figures and extrapolations is the truth. More people have come out with their own versions of the real reason why Nigeria needs to stop a subsidy that should not have existed in the first instance.* *Second is that Nigerians have become more perceptive at seeing the big lie that has been sold to them for the past fifty years. * *The government has been a big lie, its policies a poignant reminder of the wickedness of man to man and its appetite for waste compares only to Usain Bolt’s abilities to break his own world records over and over again. Subsequent Nigerian governments have elevated corruption and wasteful spending to a new art form. No stable nation competes with us in this genre, we are record breakers.* *Let us briefly examine the origins of the fuel subsidy, and the carnage of catastrophy that has followed. We discovered oil in the southern part of Nigeria and sited refineries in Warri, Port Harcourt and Kaduna. In typical Nigerian style, our refineries were left to deteriorate while turn around maintenance contracts were constantly awarded to incompetent firms. Miraculously, our leaders also forgot to build additional refineries to cater for the burgeoning population. Our three refineries were built when Nigeria’s population was about eighty million people. While we doubled in size, our leaders were more focused on lining their own pockets than planning for a growing population.* *As far back as the Babangida years, Nigeria had been experiencing shortfalls between internally refined petroleum products and actual demand for petroleum products. Professor Tam David West managed the challenge by exchanging crude oil for finished products. He devised a system where countries were paid in crude oil for refining petroleum products, ensuring that nobody made money from the situation. * *This problem of lack of internal capacity to refine crude oil is perennial, just that the politicians took over and devised a clever way of making money from their own incompetence.* *The politicians created a class of super rich Nigerians who became cohorts in funding elections and perpetuating corrupt people in government. How else can you explain the fact that everyone who has donated two hundred million naira to the presidential campaign fund in the past two elections are all major players in the oil sector? How would they be paid back? SUBSIDY! * *People like Aliko Dangote, Femi Otedola and Wale Tinubu all became purse keepers and financiers for the politicians, empowered and capable to provide cash for political conquest. Some of them barely existed ten years ago! The politicians neglected the refineries, did not build new ones and created the elaborate scheme of phantom subsidy in order to solve their own problems, not ours!* *Like all businessmen, the “oil marketers” were quick to sense opportunity. Several of them set up accounts with banks to harness the business opportunity of subsidy, not petroleum products marketing. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi provides insight into these fraudulent dealings in his write up:* *“You establish an LC for importing 20,000MT of PMS and the PPPRA says this is at a landed cost of N145 for example per litre. So u know that for every litre in that vessel you will get at least N85 as subsidy. Now you have a number of "possiblities": * *1. You can off load 5,000 MT and bribe customs and other officials to sign papers confirming u offloaded 20k MT. Then do the same across the chain with a paper trail showing you delivered 20k MT to a tank farm, and maybe even that u transported it to Maiduguri entitling you to a share of the price equalization fund. Maybe for N20-N30 per litre u bribe all those who sign the papers. The 15k MT you take to Benin or Ghana or Cameroun and sell at market price thus makin an additional "profit" of N55/ltr on 15,000MT! * *2 you can just forge documents and have them stamped without bringing in anything and collect the subsidy-PPPRA pays based on DOCUMENTS. * *3 you can bring in the fuel, load on tankers, sell some at N65N some at 80 some at 100 some across the land borders. * *You can do all this and no one can catch it or prove it because somebody was paid to sign off on docs. And with a high enough margin there is too much temptation to be resisted and firepower for bribing officials. * *When I spoke to the house of reps I told them why I was suspecting fraud. It starts from PPPRA "allocations" based on "capacity". You will find a company like Mobil with capacity for say 60,000 MT and a relatively unknown name with a capacity of say 90k MT. Red alert number 1. * *Although PPPRA is supposed to give license only to marketers with a national distribution network you see names of companies where you have never seen a filling station in their name. * *I was a chief risk officer in UBA and in FBN for many years approving loans so I know the name of every big player in every industry that nigerian banks lend to as these are among the biggest banks in the country. I see names on the list I don't recognise either from portfolios. I looked at or industry studies over the years. Red alert number 2. * *I studied the papers presented to PPPRA in a short period in 2010 (I won't tell you how I got them!). And I was surprised that on some days over 10 vessels are said to have discharged cargo in lagos on the same day-clearly the same officers stamping and "verifying" that the vessels were SEEN. Is it really realistic that on the same day 13-15 vessels can discharge in Lagos? Red alert number 3. “* *According to the same write up, Femi Otedola’s Zenon and AP owe the Nigerian banking system about 220 billion naira in bad loans that have been taken over by AMCON, yet he did not have stock of petroleum products worth a fraction of that amount. You can bet he also did not have the cash in his corporate accounts. More importantly, he could still afford to give the Jonathan/Sambo campaign organization 200 million during the election season. * *I have taken time to quote the Governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank in order to show you, my reader, the sleaze that makes for an arresting Hollywood thriller. On all sides, you see subterfuge, greed and corruption. You see institutionalized kleptomania across the value chain, oil marketers, port officials, PPPRA, DPR and bankers who knew the truth and never said it until now! * *It is clear to me that the subsidy scheme was created and executed by the government to enrich their friends and themselves. It means the nation budgeted huge amounts of money which we knew was going to be pocketed by a few people.* *Why is the Goodluck government removing the subsidy? Profligacy is not sustainable on the long run! They now want us to pay for their incompetence. It is clear that no official wants to let the truth out of its hiding place. We are broke! Our external reserve is down to 27 billion dollars from 80 billion when Obasanjo handed over. Our internal debt is 5 trillion naira. External debt is back to 35 billion dollars. Excess crude oil account is down to zero. We are broke yet the only rich people in Nigeria are politicians and some pastors. Politicians who earn more than every other earthly government and pastors who collect earthly money, lay hands on and promise heavenly bliss to men of shady character. Some of these super rich pastors are not saying anything now. Some of them are speaking as a matter of expediency. Some of them have private jets with which to fly out of Nigeria. They share that same luxury with the dirty politicians they bless and celebrate with front row seats in their churches. * *We need to ask our government what they are getting paid for. Is it the national pride that we currently enjoy or our infrastructure that is out of this world? We still have polio in Nigeria in 2012. We have hospitals that are not fit to treat animals. No government primary school competes with a public school in South Africa. Our universities provide better criminals than scholars. We do not have roads. in the place of roads we have long stretches of death traps designed to keep the population in check through untimely death. We do not have electricity. We have lost our factories to Ghana. Just a few grumbling manufacturers remain, who are yet to get land in Ghana.* *We have lost everything we met on the land. Cocoa, palm oil, groundnuts, cotton, cashew and rubber have been forgotten and are better produced by nations who came to learn from us. We have lost our moral compass, our society is fractured, our statehood is threatened. Our citizens are in all prisons around the world. Some of them prefer foreign prisons to Nigeria. Our passport is treated with disdain everywhere you present it. Why should our Senate Leader earn 600 million naira per annum? Why should our senators earn 30 million naira per month? Why should our National Assembly gulp 1.2 trillion naira per annum while we try to save 1.4 trillion from subsidy removal ? Why should our government be this big with special advisers on cassava and beans affairs? Do we need 72 ministers and 36 states? Do we need a Minister for Water Resources when 95 percent of Nigeria cannot recognize a water faucet? Why would our president spend close to a billion on food while close to eighty percent live on less than a dollar a day? Why should he budget a billion for generators and diesel when he is urging us to believe in his power sector reform? Why does our President need 6 private jets? Why do our governors move around with twenty-vehicle convoys while David Cameron has just two vehicles and one outrider? * *Why should our politicians keep their salaries when Obama slashed his? Why should we continue to be wasteful when the handwriting on the wall says “danger”? Why should we believe this government when it says the subsidy gain will be properly reinvested? Despite my utmost respect for Christopher Kolade, I have this ominous feeling that he is being set up to be rubbished. Same for Alfa Belgore!* * * *Labaran Maku must be suffering from foot and mouth disease if he really used that cavity to announce 1,600 buses as palliative measure for 170 million people. Lagbus has 5,000 buses. What impact will that make? You mean the government of Nigeria needs to subject her citizens to hardship in order to buy 1,600 buses. On the strength of the initial information on how the savings will be invested, given by Labaran Maku and the minister for Labour, the government is bereft of both ideas and dictionaries! * *To move Nigeria forward, we must do the following:* · *Demand more transparency from the government especially in oil dealings and allocations. Remember the way Okonjo Iweala was publishing the allocations to all tiers of government.* · *Demand immediate reduction of the size of this government and its wasteful ways.* · *Demand specific prioritized projects which should be tied to the subsidy savings (if we negotiate a reduction instead of outright reversal).* · *We need to demand same from our state governments, prune down the waste. * · *We need to ensure our protest is peaceful and organized to avoid loss of life.* · *We need to resist provocation and divisionist tendencies.* · *We need to pray for Nigeria. I still believe God can use this moment to make a change in Nigeria. Pray that anyone who steals from Nigeria’s commonwealth will experience pain and sorrow. Pray for God to help us in the same way he intervened Abacha-wise.* · *Share additional information online, do not stop the flow of information. The more we know, the better we become.* On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM, wrote: > Just got dis info and think It's worth sharing: > Wikileaks, the popular compedium of facts and figures has adviced that > Nigerians should get informed and stand for their human right or bow down > to the dictatorship of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan > Wikileaks admits of having in their possession secret/classified documents > of bank transaction of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan transferring > 23billion dollars from Nigeria excess crude oil account and 80billion > dollars from Nigeria foreign reserves account to his private account, that > the removal of the country's fuel subsidy is a way of covering his tracks. > Wikileaks advices that to triple the price of fuel in the Nigeria, an > under developing country of a population of 150million citizens, will > increase inflations by 120% and devalue the country's currency by 50%, I.e > citizens will have to pay double the price for a commodity(goods and > services) > Wikileaks advices that Nigerian citizens to Protest against the > dictatorship of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan for 5working days for a > start (that's from Monday-Friday) so the Government will feel the impact > when the value of the stock exchange falls and the economy is at a > standstill......pls google Wikileaks and read more. Kindly re-broadcast to > inform more of our people. I pray for God's guidance as we carry on our > peaceful protest > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. -- Professor Folasade T Ogunsola MBCHB, FWACP,FMCPath, PH.D (Cardiff) Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, College of Medicine, University of Lagos. Idi-araba, PMB 12003, Lagos, Nigeria Secretary Infection Control African Network Please visit the website of Infection Control African Network! www.ICANetwork.co.za -- ZAO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Jan 15 12:50:31 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:50:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] No to censorship : Food for thought and call to action In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1988051258.172300.1326649831740.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n26> Dear Songitu Ekpe Many thanks for this cry from the heart ! At last we got a grass-root opinion (on Nigeria's peoples and their dramas) that gives some change to the rather "academic" approach usually practiced on our nevertheless sympathetic list. YES, we clearly see the need of abolishing censorship onthe Internet ! With my friendly support Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT, France > Message du 15/01/12 18:03 > De : "Sonigitu Ekpe" > A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] No to censorship : Food for thought and call to action > > > Dear Lists, > Find below for your info and to see the need to support no censorship of content for the Internet by whatever means. > Sea > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "ZAO Olunuga" > Date: 14 Jan 2012 16:11 > Subject: Fwd: Fw: Food for thought and call to action > To: "Bolanle Adefuye" , "Olutayo Alebiosu" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Ozioma Nwokorie" , "Taiwo Odumosu" , "Tokunbo Olunuga" , "olunuga omolade" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Sonigitu Ekpe" , , , , , , , > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: 13 January 2012 16:04 > Subject: Fw: Food for thought and call to action > To: labopopoola at yahoo.com, olugbenga Ayannuga , ZAO Olunuga > > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. From: sade ogunsola Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:49:08 +0100 To: Cc: Abimbola Olu; Ade Adeosun; Adebiyi Wole; Adebolajo Adeyemo; Adedapo K.S.; adefemi afolabi; Adegbenro Adeyemo; Adegboyega Akere; Adekunbi Banjo; kunle ayinmode; Ademowo George; Aderonke Adegbola; Adewunmi Adeoye; afalade33 at hotmail.com; duduyemi; Balogun W.A.; Bimpe Gbadeyan; Clement Abu-Okolo; Funsho Adeyemi; Fagbamiye E.O; Faniran moses ; Fasanmade A.; Fehintola F.; fmabbiyesuku at yahoo.co.uk; f_ogunbiyi at yahoo.com; Franklin; Catherine Falade ; Oludotun J.S.O; Olufunke Oluwatoba; ; Remi Kehinde Subject: Food for thought and call to action > This is worth reading!   Friday, January 6, 2012 The Oily Affairs of a Profligate Nation I have read and watched several arguments pervading the public domain since the announcement of the removal of the fuel subsidy. I have been very circumspect in pitching my tent during these turbulent times. However, it is clear that all Nigerians are justifiably angry. By Nigerians I refer to the majority of people who have their own hands in their own pockets! > > Despite the fervent uproar that heralded this unpopular government policy, some things have been achieved. What amazes me is the speed at which these two things have been achieved: > First, the truth is coming out concerning the mono-trade that props-up our nation. Veiled behind contrasting facts, figures and extrapolations is the truth. More people have come out with their own versions of the real reason why Nigeria needs to stop a subsidy that should not have existed in the first instance. > Second is that Nigerians have become more perceptive at seeing the big lie that has been sold to them for the past fifty years. > > The government has been a big lie, its policies a poignant reminder of the wickedness of man to man and its appetite for waste compares only to Usain Bolt’s abilities to break his own world records over and over again. Subsequent Nigerian governments have elevated corruption and wasteful spending to a new art form. No stable nation competes with us in this genre, we are record breakers. > Let us briefly examine the origins of the fuel subsidy, and the carnage of catastrophy that has followed. We discovered oil in the southern part of Nigeria and sited refineries in Warri, Port Harcourt and Kaduna. In typical Nigerian style, our refineries were left to deteriorate while turn around maintenance contracts were constantly awarded to incompetent firms. Miraculously, our leaders also forgot to build additional refineries to cater for the burgeoning population. Our three refineries were built when Nigeria’s population was about eighty million people. While we doubled in size, our leaders were more focused on lining their own pockets than planning for a growing population. > As far back as the Babangida years, Nigeria had been experiencing shortfalls between internally refined petroleum products and actual demand for petroleum products. Professor Tam David West managed the challenge by exchanging crude oil for finished products. He devised a system where countries were paid in crude oil for refining petroleum products, ensuring that nobody made money from the situation. This problem of lack of internal capacity to refine crude oil is perennial, just that the politicians took over and devised a clever way of making money from their own incompetence. > The politicians created a class of super rich Nigerians who became cohorts in funding elections and perpetuating corrupt people in government. How else can you explain the fact that everyone who has donated two hundred million naira to the presidential campaign fund in the past two elections are all major players in the oil sector? How would they be paid back? SUBSIDY! > People like Aliko Dangote, Femi Otedola and Wale Tinubu all became purse keepers and financiers for the politicians, empowered and capable to provide cash for political conquest. Some of them barely existed ten years ago! The politicians neglected the refineries, did not build new ones and created the elaborate scheme of phantom subsidy in order to solve their own problems, not ours! > Like all businessmen, the “oil marketers” were quick to sense opportunity. Several of them set up accounts with banks to harness the business opportunity of subsidy, not petroleum products marketing. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi provides insight into these fraudulent dealings in his write up: > “You establish an LC for importing 20,000MT of PMS and the PPPRA says this is at a landed cost of N145 for example per litre. So u know that for every litre in that vessel you will get at least N85 as subsidy. Now you have a number of "possiblities": > 1. You can off load 5,000 MT and bribe customs and other officials to sign papers confirming u offloaded 20k MT. Then do the same across the chain with a paper trail showing you delivered 20k MT to a tank farm, and maybe even that u transported it to Maiduguri entitling you to a share of the price equalization fund. Maybe for N20-N30 per litre u bribe all those who sign the papers. The 15k MT you take to Benin or Ghana or Cameroun and sell at market price thus makin an additional "profit" of N55/ltr on 15,000MT! > 2 you can just forge documents and have them stamped without bringing in anything and collect the subsidy-PPPRA pays based on DOCUMENTS. > 3 you can bring in the fuel, load on tankers, sell some at N65N some at 80 some at 100 some across the land borders. > You can do all this and no one can catch it or prove it because somebody was paid to sign off on docs. And with a high enough margin there is too much temptation to be resisted and firepower for bribing officials. > When I spoke to the house of reps I told them why I was suspecting fraud. It starts from PPPRA "allocations" based on "capacity". You will find a company like Mobil with capacity for say 60,000 MT and a relatively unknown name with a capacity of say 90k MT. Red alert number 1. > Although PPPRA is supposed to give license only to marketers with a national distribution network you see names of companies where you have never seen a filling station in their name. I was a chief risk officer in UBA and in FBN for many years approving loans so I know the name of every big player in every industry that nigerian banks lend to as these are among the biggest banks in the country. I see names on the list I don't recognise either from portfolios. I looked at or industry studies over the years. Red alert number 2. > I studied the papers presented to PPPRA in a short period in 2010 (I won't tell you how I got them!). And I was surprised that on some days over 10 vessels are said to have discharged cargo in lagos on the same day-clearly the same officers stamping and "verifying" that the vessels were SEEN. Is it really realistic that on the same day 13-15 vessels can discharge in Lagos? Red alert number 3. “ > According to the same write up, Femi Otedola’s Zenon and AP owe the Nigerian banking system about 220 billion naira in bad loans that have been taken over by AMCON, yet he did not have stock of petroleum products worth a fraction of that amount. You can bet he also did not have the cash in his corporate accounts. More importantly, he could still afford to give the Jonathan/Sambo campaign organization 200 million during the election season. > I have taken time to quote the Governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank in order to show you, my reader, the sleaze that makes for an arresting Hollywood thriller. On all sides, you see subterfuge, greed and corruption. You see institutionalized kleptomania across the value chain, oil marketers, port officials, PPPRA, DPR and bankers who knew the truth and never said it until now! > > It is clear to me that the subsidy scheme was created and executed by the government to enrich their friends and themselves. It means the nation budgeted huge amounts of money which we knew was going to be pocketed by a few people. > Why is the Goodluck government removing the subsidy? Profligacy is not sustainable on the long run! They now want us to pay for their incompetence. It is clear that no official wants to let the truth out of its hiding place. We are broke! Our external reserve is down to 27 billion dollars from 80 billion when Obasanjo handed over. Our internal debt is 5 trillion naira. External debt is back to 35 billion dollars. Excess crude oil account is down to zero. We are broke yet the only rich people in Nigeria are politicians and some pastors. Politicians who earn more than every other earthly government and pastors who collect earthly money, lay hands on and promise heavenly bliss to men of shady character. Some of these super rich pastors are not saying anything now. Some of them are speaking as a matter of expediency. Some of them have private jets with which to fly out of Nigeria. They share that same luxury with the dirty politicians they bless and celebrate with front row seats in their churches. > We need to ask our government what they are getting paid for. Is it the national pride that we currently enjoy or our infrastructure that is out of this world? We still have polio in Nigeria in 2012. We have hospitals that are not fit to treat animals. No government primary school competes with a public school in South Africa. Our universities provide better criminals than scholars. We do not have roads. in the place of roads we have long stretches of death traps designed to keep the population in check through untimely death. We do not have electricity. We have lost our factories to Ghana. Just a few grumbling manufacturers remain, who are yet to get land in Ghana. > We have lost everything we met on the land. Cocoa, palm oil, groundnuts, cotton, cashew and rubber have been forgotten and are better produced by nations who came to learn from us. We have lost our moral compass, our society is fractured, our statehood is threatened. Our citizens are in all prisons around the world. Some of them prefer foreign prisons to Nigeria. Our passport is treated with disdain everywhere you present it. Why should our Senate Leader earn 600 million naira per annum? Why should our senators earn 30 million naira per month? Why should our National Assembly gulp 1.2 trillion naira per annum while we try to save 1.4 trillion from subsidy removal ? Why should our government be this big with special advisers on cassava and beans affairs? Do we need 72 ministers and 36 states? Do we need a Minister for Water Resources when 95 percent of Nigeria cannot recognize a water faucet? Why would our president spend close to a billion on food while close to eighty percent live on less than a dollar a day? Why should he budget a billion for generators and diesel when he is urging us to believe in his power sector reform? Why does our President need 6 private jets? Why do our governors move around with twenty-vehicle convoys while David Cameron has just two vehicles and one outrider? > Why should our politicians keep their salaries when Obama slashed his? Why should we continue to be wasteful when the handwriting on the wall says “danger”? Why should we believe this government when it says the subsidy gain will be properly reinvested? Despite my utmost respect for Christopher Kolade, I have this ominous feeling that he is being set up to be rubbished. Same for Alfa Belgore! > > Labaran Maku must be suffering from foot and mouth disease if he really used that cavity to announce 1,600 buses as palliative measure for 170 million people. Lagbus has 5,000 buses. What impact will that make? You mean the government of Nigeria needs to subject her citizens to hardship in order to buy 1,600 buses. On the strength of the initial information on how the savings will be invested, given by Labaran Maku and the minister for Labour, the government is bereft of both ideas and dictionaries! > To move Nigeria forward, we must do the following: · Demand more transparency from the government especially in oil dealings and allocations. Remember the way Okonjo Iweala was publishing the allocations to all tiers of government. · Demand immediate reduction of the size of this government and its wasteful ways. · Demand specific prioritized projects which should be tied to the subsidy savings (if we negotiate a reduction instead of outright reversal). · We need to demand same from our state governments, prune down the waste. · We need to ensure our protest is peaceful and organized to avoid loss of life. · We need to resist provocation and divisionist tendencies. > > > > > · We need to pray for Nigeria. I still believe God can use this moment to make a change in Nigeria. Pray that anyone who steals from Nigeria’s commonwealth will experience pain and sorrow. Pray for God to help us in the same way he intervened Abacha-wise. · Share additional information online, do not stop the flow of information. The more we know, the better we become. > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:14 PM, wrote: > Just got dis info and think It's worth sharing: > Wikileaks, the popular compedium of facts and figures has adviced that Nigerians should get informed and stand for their human right or bow down to the dictatorship of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan > Wikileaks admits of having in their possession secret/classified documents of bank transaction of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan transferring 23billion dollars from Nigeria excess crude oil account and 80billion dollars from Nigeria foreign reserves account to his private account, that the removal of the country's fuel subsidy is a way of covering his tracks. > Wikileaks advices that to triple the price of fuel in the Nigeria, an under developing country of a population of 150million citizens, will increase inflations by 120% and devalue the country's currency by 50%, I.e citizens will have to pay double the price for a commodity(goods and services) > Wikileaks advices that Nigerian citizens to Protest against the dictatorship of President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan for 5working days for a start (that's from Monday-Friday) so the Government will feel the impact when the value of the stock exchange falls and the economy is at a standstill......pls google Wikileaks and read more. Kindly re-broadcast to inform more of our people. I pray for God's guidance as we carry on our peaceful protest > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. > > -- >   Professor Folasade T Ogunsola > MBCHB, FWACP,FMCPath, PH.D (Cardiff) > Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, > College of Medicine, University of Lagos. > Idi-araba, PMB 12003, Lagos, > Nigeria Secretary Infection Control African Network Please visit the website of Infection Control African Network! www.ICANetwork.co.za  > > > -- > ZAO > >   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jan 15 13:07:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:07:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling about it. In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. And that i very much support. But who is going to miss them during the strike? a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object either way. avri On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Donny Shaw > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > To: > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > > > Thank You! > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > > To unsubscribe, go to: > http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 14:32:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:32:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] Message-ID: Dear All, Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that there is a website strike to protest against censorship on January 18, 2012. After discussions with Izumi, we would like to hold consultations for 24 hours from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th January 2012 and we will use these consultations as a basis for considering whether or not we participate. Let us have your thoughts. Izumi and Sala On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Donny Shaw > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > To: > > ** > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. > Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet > censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. > And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a > popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we > can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > *Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > * > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > [image: Share on Twitter] [image: > Share on FB] > > Thank You! > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > To unsubscribe, go to: > http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 18:05:12 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:05:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think we should not only do the website strike but we should also post a small statement that day on a frontpage that day. The same statement could also be sent out to various websites, news, pr, social media websites and everyone in IGC that has and can set their twitter and facebook statuses? I have already blogged and protested on the SOPA issue! -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that there is a > website strike to protest against censorship on January 18, 2012. After > discussions with Izumi, we would like to hold consultations for 24 hours > from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th January 2012 and we will use these > consultations as a basis for considering whether or not we participate. > > Let us have your thoughts. > > Izumi and Sala > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> ** >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Donny Shaw >> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >> Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >> To: >> >> ** >> >> On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. >> Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet >> censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. >> >> Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, >> Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform >> and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. >> If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. >> >> *Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. >> * >> >> If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: >> [image: Share on Twitter] [image: >> Share on FB] >> >> Thank You! >> >> -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew >> To unsubscribe, go to: >> http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 21:02:06 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:32:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Yes, IGC web could go on strike. (But not "down") The site could be up, with a banner replacing the front-page, "today we are in strike together with...." And with a more elaborate message than found in the strike website. We could urge other civil society organizations, and our members to do the same. Sivasubramanian M http://isocindiachennai.org On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that there is a > website strike to protest against censorship on January 18, 2012. After > discussions with Izumi, we would like to hold consultations for 24 hours > from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th January 2012 and we will use these > consultations as a basis for considering whether or not we participate. > > Let us have your thoughts. > > Izumi and Sala > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> ** >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Donny Shaw >> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >> Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >> To: >> >> ** >> >> On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. >> Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet >> censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. >> >> Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, >> Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform >> and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. >> If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. >> >> *Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. >> * >> >> If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: >> [image: Share on Twitter] [image: >> Share on FB] >> >> Thank You! >> >> -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew >> To unsubscribe, go to: >> http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 22:13:16 2012 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:13:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support IGC participation - I like the idea of the site up, with a 'strike' message on the home page. Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 22:46:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:46:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Sylvia Caras wrote: > I support IGC participation - I like the idea of the site up, with a > 'strike' message on the home page. sure, let's do it. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Mon Jan 16 00:49:58 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:49:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 100% support no censorship of the Internet content. So a strike message be put up on the IGC web site. Thank you for the understanding. Sea On 16 Jan 2012 04:48, "McTim" wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Sylvia Caras wrote: > I support IGC partic... sure, let's do it. -- 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 subscrib... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jan 16 05:01:12 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:01:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> Thanks Sivasubramanian for your suggestion. I fully support it because censorship is not "negociable" for a CS org. Jean-Louis Fullsack CSPTT-France > Message du 16/01/12 03:02 > De : "Sivasubramanian M" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Copie à : "michael gurstein" > Objet : Re: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] > > Dear Sala, > > Yes, IGC web could go on strike. (But not "down")  The site could be up, with a banner replacing the front-page, "today we are in strike together with...."  > And with a more elaborate message than found in the strike website. > We could urge other civil society organizations, and our members to do the same. > Sivasubramanian M http://isocindiachennai.org > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that there is a website strike to protest against censorship on January 18, 2012. After discussions with Izumi, we would like to hold consultations for 24 hours from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th January 2012 and we will use these consultations as a basis for considering whether or not we participate. > Let us have your thoughts.  > Izumi and Sala > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >   ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Donny Shaw > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > To: > > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > Thank You! > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew To unsubscribe, go to: > http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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: @SalanietaTSkype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jan 16 05:19:46 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:49:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> References: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> Message-ID: <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> SInce IGC website is not one much visited even by our members, the strike should include activity on the IGC list.... (Though frankly, on principle, I believe that US's 'global' excesses of the SOPA kind must be countered in more globally democratic ways than just appealing to the global sensitivity of the US government, which even if it does exist, and gets exercised in the present case, is merely instrumental with regard to US interests.) parminder On Monday 16 January 2012 03:31 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Thanks Sivasubramanian for your suggestion. I fully support it because > censorship is not "negociable" for a CS org. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSPTT-France > > > > > > Message du 16/01/12 03:02 > > De : "Sivasubramanian M" > > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Copie à : "michael gurstein" > > Objet : Re: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike > against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] > > > > > > Dear Sala, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, IGC web could go on strike. (But not "down") The site could > be up, with a banner replacing the front-page, "today we are in > strike together with...." > > > > > > And with a more elaborate message than found in the strike website. > > > > > > We could urge other civil society organizations, and our members > to do the same. > > > > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that > there is a website strike to protest against censorship on > January 18, 2012. After discussions with Izumi, we would like > to hold consultations for 24 hours from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th > January 2012 and we will use these consultations as a basis > for considering whether or not we participate. > > > > > > Let us have your thoughts. > > > > > > Izumi and Sala > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: *Donny Shaw* > > > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > > To: > > > > > > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on > the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark > in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, > SOPA and PIPA. > > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are > participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join > (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular > collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a > nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > > *Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the > strike. Click here. > * > > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links > to share this: > > > > > > Thank You! > > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > > To unsubscribe, go to: > > http://act.fightforthefuture.org/unsubscribe > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and 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.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From voxinternet at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 05:27:47 2012 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:27:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Voeux Vox internet Message-ID: Cher-e-s collègues et ami-e-s, C’est la dernière saison des vœux pour Vox Internet : le programme de recherche se clot définitivement avec la publication prochaine de l’ouvrage collectif « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, 1er trimestre 2012, cf ci-joint). À toutes fins utiles, les archives du portail du programme sont consultables à l’adresse suivante : www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. En vous remerciant pour votre collaboration ou votre écoute, je vous souhaite au nom de l’équipe du programme tous mes meilleurs vœux pour 2012. Françoise Massit-Folléa f.massit at orange.fr Dear colleagues and friends, Here are the last season’s greetings from the Vox Internet research program : it comes to an end with the forthcoming collective book « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, Paris, 1st quarter 2012 – see attached). If necessary, you will find the archives of the web portal at the following address : www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. We thank you for your collaboration or interest and we wish you a very happy new year. On behalf of the Vox Internet team, Françoise Massit-Folléa f.massit at orange.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: couv vox internet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1446232 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jan 16 06:03:10 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:03:10 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> References: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <26690231.131578.1326711790965.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d25> For uour information see document attached Best Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG_Normative_Experience_in_Internet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1446232 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 08:43:04 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:43:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] Voeux Vox internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Francoise, This is useful, thank you. Kind Regards, Sala 2012/1/16 Programme de recherche Vox Internet > Cher-e-s collègues et ami-e-s, > > > > C’est la dernière saison des vœux pour Vox Internet : le programme de > recherche se clot définitivement avec la publication prochaine de l’ouvrage > collectif « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, > 1er trimestre 2012, cf ci-joint). > > > > À toutes fins utiles, les archives du portail du programme sont > consultables à l’adresse suivante : www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. > > > > En vous remerciant pour votre collaboration ou votre écoute, je vous > souhaite au nom de l’équipe du programme tous mes meilleurs vœux pour 2012. > > > > Françoise Massit-Folléa > > f.massit at orange.fr > > > > > > Dear colleagues and friends, > > > > Here are the last season’s greetings from the Vox Internet research > program : it comes to an end with the forthcoming collective book > « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, Paris, > 1st quarter 2012 – see attached). > > > > If necessary, you will find the archives of the web portal at the > following address : > > www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. > > > > We thank you for your collaboration or interest and we wish you a very > happy new year. > > > > On behalf of the Vox Internet team, > > Françoise Massit-Folléa > > f.massit at orange.fr > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 joy at apc.org Mon Jan 16 14:41:52 2012 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:41:52 +1300 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights Message-ID: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> Hi all - sharing with you APC's response to Vint's recent New York Times column: http://bit.ly/zbp253 all the best for 2012 Joy Liddicoat Project Coordinator Internet Rights are Human Rights www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 14:58:41 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:58:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> Message-ID: If *access to* the internet is NOT a human right, then governments can arbitrarily block access to the internet without due process of law of any kind. I am confused as to why anyone on this list or elsewhere would deny that "access to" the internet is a human right OTHER THAN the acknowledged confusion of when "access to" is interpreted as meaning "government-paid access to." But the key language in this debate in recent days has not, to the best of my memory, ever raised the question of whether :"*government-paid* access to the internet is a human right." Also, the distinction between "enablers" of rights or "technologies" to facilitate rights can be one that utterly destroys the underlying right if it is conceptualized in the sense of "rights do not include tools to facilitate rights.." If that is indeed the case, then self-defense rights do not include the right to use hands or sticks or anything else, all of which the government could make illegal without due process to anyone. The right to speak, if use of tools is not encompassed within it somehow, would not include the ability to make sounds above ten decibels, or the use of loudspeakers, or the use of the tool of paper (on the grounds that it increases littering, or what have you). Well, the "right" to speak would only include these tools, or any other tools, if the government specifically allowed it, because *"tools" would be wide open to regulation,*whereas the rights themselves would not be. Anyone who is serious about rights on the internet might profitably rethink this proposed distinction between technologies and tools used to implement rights "vs" the rights themselves. It is a false distinction, as stated. *There are some distinctions to be made vis a vis the technologies of speech vs. speech itself, but the distinctions that are being made are so overbroad as to extinguish free speech in their practical application.* Paul Lehto, J.D. On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > Hi all – sharing with you APC’s response to Vint’s recent New York Times > column: http://bit.ly/zbp253 **** > > all the best for 2012**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 16 15:11:18 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:11:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> Message-ID: <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> Paul, On Jan 16, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > If access to the internet is NOT a human right, then governments can arbitrarily block access to the internet without due process of law of any kind. > > I am confused as to why anyone on this list or elsewhere would deny that "access to" the internet is a human right OTHER THAN the acknowledged confusion of when "access to" is interpreted as meaning "government-paid access to." > > But the key language in this debate in recent days has not, to the best of my memory, ever raised the question of whether :"government-paid access to the internet is a human right." Who is the "government" in your scenario, and "whose" money does it spend? Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 15:33:54 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:33:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Who is the "government" in your scenario, and "whose" money does it spend? > If it is legitimate government, then it is "our" government, spending "our" money. ("Our" is the grammatically parallel term for "We" as in "We the People") I am not saying, *per se*, that no one ever has, or could have, a right to government-paid access to the internet. That can be discussed elsewhere, separately. What I am, instead, saying is that it is very destructive of the internet and especially the concept of rights of users regarding the internet to claim, (as is conceded in the blog linked to at the outset of the thread) that it is somehow a good point to believe that there is no right of "access to the internet". That's a false statement. Anybody that stops somebody else from accessing the internet is wrong and violating the rights of the person they are obstructing. (This does not mean that one has a right of access to the internet for ANY purpose whatsoever, or at any time whatsoever, or at all places whatever...) Depending on the jurisdiction in question, one may or may not have a cause of action and therefore a remedy for such obstruction depending on whether the obstructer is governmental or private, but it is nevertheless a violation of rights to obstruct someone's access to the internet in the vast majority of instances, regardless of whether the law provides a remedy for financial or other damages, or not. The question of effective remedies, while quite important and indeed related, is also a separate question from whether one's rights have been violated or not. Paul Lehto, J.D. Paul, > > On Jan 16, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > If *access to* the internet is NOT a human right, then governments can > arbitrarily block access to the internet without due process of law of any > kind. > > I am confused as to why anyone on this list or elsewhere would deny that > "access to" the internet is a human right OTHER THAN the acknowledged > confusion of when "access to" is interpreted as meaning "government-paid > access to." > > But the key language in this debate in recent days has not, to the best of > my memory, ever raised the question of whether :"*government-paid* access > to the internet is a human right." > > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 16:17:23 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:17:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Tales of the Chinese Railway: The Digital 1%, Vint Cerf's Internet as a Human Right (Not), the Digital Divide and Effective Use Message-ID: <90FE346E2DF94F72A5BF92994F155E33@UserVAIO> Gurstein's Community Informatics blog: Tales of the Chinese Railway: The Digital 1%, Vint Cerf's Internet as a Human Right (Not), the Digital Divide and Effective Use There is a very widespread belief that the increasingly ubiquitous availability of mobile communication and through this, access to wireless Internet, is somehow the resolution of the "digital (and other) divide(s)". Thus, a current news story from China: To ease people's woes, the central government this year launched a new online "ticketing system to curb long lines at stations and prevent scalpers from selling them in the black market. http://wp.me/pJQl5-8F -------------- 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 Jan 16 20:26:18 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:26:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> References: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, many thanks for all good comments and suggestions so far. We like to hear a little more before closing this. Izumi 2012年1月16日月曜日 parminder parminder at itforchange.net: > SInce IGC website is not one much visited even by our members, the strike should include activity on the IGC list.... > > (Though frankly, on principle, I believe that US's 'global' excesses of the SOPA kind must be countered in more globally democratic ways than just appealing to the global sensitivity of the US government, which even if it does exist, and gets exercised in the present case, is merely instrumental with regard to US interests.) > > parminder > > On Monday 16 January 2012 03:31 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Thanks Sivasubramanian for your suggestion. I fully support it because censorship is not "negociable" for a CS org. > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSPTT-France > > > > >> Message du 16/01/12 03:02 >> De : "Sivasubramanian M" >> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> Copie à : "michael gurstein" >> Objet : Re: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] >> >> > > Dear Sala, > >> > >> > > Yes, IGC web could go on strike. (But not "down") The site could be up, with a banner replacing the front-page, "today we are in strike together with...." > >> > > And with a more elaborate message than found in the strike website. > >> > > We could urge other civil society organizations, and our members to do the same. > >> > > Sivasubramanian M > > http://isocindiachennai.org > >> > >> > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> > > Dear All, > >> > > Some of you may recall from Michael Gurstein's email that there is a website strike to protest against censorship on January 18, 2012. After discussions with Izumi, we would like to hold consultations for 24 hours from 8:30am UTC +12 of 16th January 2012 and we will use these consultations as a basis for considering whether or not we participate. > >> > > Let us have your thoughts. > >> > > Izumi and Sala >> >> > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:23 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Donny Shaw >> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >> Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >> To: >> >> > >> On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > >> Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g -- Sent via Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cpsr at ewilliger.com Mon Jan 16 20:51:23 2012 From: cpsr at ewilliger.com (e-cpsr) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:51:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 17:26, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear all, many thanks for all good comments and suggestions so far. We like > to hear a little more before closing this. Well, since you asked. I agree that the site should join the shutdown too. But, i agree with Parminder, the US has entirely too much influence on what happens on the 'net. I believe we should begin to think about how to run potentially censored sites, even if local governments would acquiesce to Record Companies (in this case), shutting down differing points of view. e ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:51:23 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:51:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) Message-ID: It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in either print or electronic form? I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the same time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone users: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," > he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell them what they should be doing > next."* > > Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has > collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care > about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS > capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one > foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] > Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any such "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference with Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on the voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer to tell Google *where to go*, than to have Google tell them what to do. But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that is choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that it can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer accessible to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen by Google is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. This is not too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably personalized and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps (and this is only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we are committed to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will have to wade past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to provide them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or operating system) one is born on or born into. The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice of being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords do not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 22:52:27 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:52:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Paul, your write: "If access to the internet is NOT a human right, then governments can arbitrarily block access to the internet without due process of law of any kind." You seem to equate "human right" with "absolute and unfettered right". No "right" is absolute and above the law (or jurisprudence), if nothing else because it has to be balanced against equivalent rights. (Due process is still another matter) If I cry "fire" in a crowded theater and people die, I cannot argue "freedom of speech". Ordre public may be advanced to justify regulation as well as protection of individual rights (piracy etc.). subject to proportionality etc. So your clamoring for a "absolute and unfettred right" is not going to take you very far. In the end technology will determine the outcome. Internet was designed to be immune to interruption - both as a system, and in any of its messages. If a technology is found to obtain selective vetting, it will be in. (Whether such a technology may become part of cybewar is an interesting, yet separate issue). The threat to shut down the system as a whole in order to obtain selectivity might violate the principle of proportionality but it will be effective, I'm afraid. Note different strategies in advancing government intervention in the net: - protection of private ownership rights against privacy (US) - protection of private rights to be "left alone" (Europe) - ordre public (India and China) Note also two things: - in all likelihood the providers will be asked to operate the filters, making "due process" a scam - The vetting technology will not be transparent, making it difficult to understand what is going on. Personally I consider "virality" of the net to be the greatest challenge. The recent India case is telling. Whether there are offending images on the net is immaterial. Just believing that they are somewhere may trigger virality, with very real consequences (remember Orson Welles' War of the Worlds) justying ordre public concerns. Here the very people who want to control the net use its viral property to great effect - what irony. Virality is regulated on the Stock exchange: stocks going viral are taken out. No one complains, so you'd have a hard case arguing "absolute and unfettered right". The sooner we come to grips with "virality", the quicker we can advance in preserving the net's basic features. Piracy is more of an IP issue than a net issue. Patentsand copyrights were meant to be incentives, not monopolies. A balance needs to be found. What piracy does it to cap, not to destroy the incentive. Aldo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 16 23:52:47 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:52:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are some other perspectives on the situation in New Delhi, visit the following links to read them: - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-India-cant-act-like-totalitarian-China-regime/articleshow/11518897.cms - http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-triggered-the-case-against-facebook-google-167374 - http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/censoring-social-media-curbs-free-speech-say-netizens-167402 - http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/googles-arguments-in-court-provoke-sharp-remarks-from-judge-167532 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > >> >> >> The intersting question here is whether this is an instance under (2.i) - >> protect the rights or reputation of others. >> > > The second limb or test that you were referring to in La Rue’s Report > refers to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political > Rights (ICCPR) which reads:- > > > > *Article 19* > > 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without > interference. > > 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this > right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and > ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or > in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. > > 3. 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: > > 1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; > 2. For the protection of national security or of public order > (ordre public), or of public health or morals. > > (Underling and highlighting for emphasis are mine). Inherent within this > Article is the notion that rights are not absolute. What is clear from this > is that there is a sense or an express insinuation of "duties and > responsibilities". I am of course thinking of what the drafters had in mind > as they put these together and I can think of a number of illustrations > some fiction and others hypotheticals:- > > > - Consider Iran which holds the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie to be > banned from entering Iran because it is their belief that it is offensive > and an assault to their religious freedoms; > - Consider Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code and the subsequent movie > created from the book; > > There are many ways to perceive this situation. One is that Salman Rushdie > and Da Vinci have the freedom and right to freely express himself in any > shape or form. However there are those who may subscribe to views (usually > religious views) who may feel offended from the type of material that is > disseminated. For some the material may be too offensive and as such > consider it their mission to speak out or to address the matter through > protests, reforms etc. This is probably why you have laws that prohibit > "obscene publications". The laws against obscene publications exist out of > concern of the rights and respect for others. To use an "extreme" > illustration, imagine a first tiered law firm where the Partners were > interviewing people to hire as Associates, they would all be properly > dressed in suits or formal wear and not in bikinis and slippers etc. In > other words there is always a context - there is a place where you are free > to dress as you please and in other environments social consciousness and > unwritten codes demand that people act, dress or behave in a certain manner. > > There are some airports around the world that will not let you in if your > shorts are above your knee. The point I am trying to illustrate is that > rights are not void of responsibilities especially where these affects > others. Determining the limitations of these is something that societies > consciously (through Judgments in court or laws) or subconsciously > constantly engage in. In Article 19 of the ICCPR highlights the limitations > as those that are provided by law. In this instance, that is Vinay Rai's > Petition as per the article, it appears that India has laws against obscene > publications. So the crux of the matter would be whether the material is > "obscene" in the eyes of the Courts in Delhi. > > > >> The line apparently taken by Mr Raj is that the mere *existence* or >> presence of offensive material on the net affects his "rights". He can >> cruise the net as long as he wants whitout these pictures imposing >> themselves on him - unless he deliberately clicks the offensive site. >> > > I am not taking Vinay Rai's side but am trying to understand where his > petition is coming from. I am guessing that he holds the view that just as > nation states can control products and services that enter India through > Customs and Excise Authorities through international trade instruments, in > the form of border control, that likewise India can determine the degree > and nature of content that is accessible to the masses in India. Countries > decide all the time what is allowed in and out of their country and in some > instances there are contrabands where systems are stringent. > > Of course in the discussions on internet governance there are all kinds of > debates and discussions from diverse perspectives. What are the various > lenses within regulation of the internet should be viewed:- > > > 1. Is it self-regulating? > 2. Should it be regulated nationally? > 3. Should it be regulated internationally? > > >> >> I tend to disagree on your definition of "open site". "Open" is only >> something that I cannot avoid, or which is collateral to my going about my >> normal life. I'd have a right, it seems to me, not to have explicit adverts >> for sexuals favours appear on the right side of my eMail as I go about my >> correspondence. These adverts are thrust upon me irrespective of my will. >> Everything else is merely "accessible" and subject to my willful choice. I >> can exercise my choice in ways that avoid contact with material that is >> offensive to me. >> > I see where you are coming from. I don't hold strong views on the same > just enjoy deconstructing and reconsructing ideas and seeing the rationale > behind positions. > >> >> Best regards to Fiji >> last time I was there I saw Comm. Bainimarama play touch football across >> the street of Holiday Inn - it was his first day in power... >> > > Assuming this was the 6th December 2006 I was in Court during the State v > Rabuka matter and remember witnessing the Judges committment to affirming > the rule of law. Much has happened since and regards to your country as > well. > >> >> Best Regards from Fiji, >> > Sala > >> >> On 13 January 2012 21:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on record for >>> stating that "any restriction to freedom of expression must meet the *strict >>> criteria* under international human rights law". He went on to discuss >>> at great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in Part IV of >>> the Report which can be found here: >>> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf >>> >>> >>> La Rue was very careful to say the following:- >>> >>> *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed as an >>> exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a three-part, >>> cumulative test: * >>> * >>> * >>> *(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to >>> everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); * >>> *(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, >>> paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , >>> namely: (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others; (ii) to protect >>> national security or public order, or public health or morals (principle of >>> legitimacy); and* >>> * (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means >>> required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity >>> and proportionality). In addition, any legislation restricting the right to >>> freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any >>> political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is >>> neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate >>> safeguards against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and remedy >>> against its abusive application."* >>> * >>> * >>> Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted that nothing >>> has been published on the site as yet. However, presuming that what is >>> reported in the article is true that there was a Private Criminal Matter in >>> the District Court of New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful >>> stay in the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on >>> "obscene publications". >>> >>> In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not read the >>> Petition but based on the presumption that what was sparsely reported is >>> true) fulfills the first test. It will be interesting though to see how >>> Courts all over the world have defined "publication". >>> >>> The difference between postal traffic and emails are that they have an >>> intended audience as opposed to having open sites etc. I am not taking >>> sides in this matter but am interested in seeing the rationale and various >>> philosophies that lie behind any decision making process. >>> >>> It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the matter if >>> someone is willing to lend their facilities for free to enable this, we can >>> try and get La Rue to participate and have a few volunteers etc >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci < >>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Religiously objectionable material on the internet >>>> >>>> *Posted on January 13, 2012* by *Aldo Matteucci >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The following report from India[1]has reached me: “ >>>> *The Delhi High Court on Thursday warned social networking site >>>> Facebook India and search engine Google India that websites can be >>>> “blocked” like in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and >>>> remove objectionable material from their web pages*.” (…) “*The case >>>> centres on a petition filed in December by a man named Vinay Rai, who >>>> referred to obscene depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet >>>> Mohammed, and various Hindu deities. In response, a Delhi magistrate >>>> summoned the executives of 21 companies and suggested they face trial for >>>> criminal conspiracy*.” >>>> >>>> If the issue as described above is the whole story, what is now before >>>> the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to the age old issue of the *responsibility >>>> of the provider* (of the transmission support) for the content that is >>>> transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: >>>> >>>> - Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the *mail*. Is >>>> the Post Office bound to vet the content of every letter? Would the DHC >>>> block postal traffic if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to check >>>> and remove objectionable material? I doubt the DHC would act in this way. >>>> - Assume “objectionable” material is put in an “advertisement >>>> section” of a paper. Is the newspaper bound to vet the content of each >>>> *advertisement*? I suspect jurisprudence says it does. >>>> >>>> Different standards are upheld – depending on the judicially perceived >>>> feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d say, the prejudice of the court. If the >>>> Postal Office belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off >>>> easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. Internet providers >>>> are all-powerful “foreign devils”. >>>> >>>> But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually to be another >>>> one. In the olden days the main issue was one of (political and morals) >>>> censorship – the state vs. the individual. The DHC case and other similar >>>> cases, however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on behalf >>>> of privacy rights of third parties*. >>>> >>>> - “Objectionable” material about real places and people is put into >>>> a *novel* – e.g. the novel is set in sea resort, which is described >>>> as “dreary”. Or a hideous crime is described as taking place in a named >>>> neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet the content of the novel, lest >>>> such “collateral” comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in >>>> France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge it of any derogatory >>>> material it may contain regarding real persons and places. I suspect that >>>> Baudelaire’s quip: “*pauvre* *Belgique*” or Zola’s social novels >>>> would no longer be permitted to see the printer’s ink, nowadays. >>>> - A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, where >>>> GoogleMap has been enjoined to blank out faces and number plates of cars in >>>> front of buildings it has photographed. >>>> >>>> A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The DHC is not >>>> asked to protect the interests of the state (India is a secular state) but >>>> ostensibly to protect the rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai >>>> and religious people like him – in this case to have his religious feelings >>>> untrammeled by offensive images. >>>> >>>> Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. Protection >>>> extends, beyond immediate exposure to offensive material, to the very >>>> notion that this material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not >>>> see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and he will not, unless >>>> he actively seeks them. He objects to the very fact that they be there, >>>> protected by just a click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the >>>> enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue – remerges as >>>> conflict over private rights. >>>> >>>> The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held right to have the >>>> state censor religiously offensive material – which is available *on >>>> demand* – in order to protect “personal feelings”. If this is the >>>> case, then holding such material in the privacy of the home would also fall >>>> under the right. >>>> >>>> The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – which is legal >>>> in the country – could not be carried out in the privacy of a specified >>>> building because this activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to >>>> pass undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out inside >>>> justifies judicial intervention (would this right also extend to orgies?). >>>> A subsequent referendum validated the right to assisted suicide, so >>>> Isuspect the judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a precedent. >>>> >>>> The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is bilateral: between >>>> the individual and the (politically) oppressive state, but a triangular >>>> relation where the state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private >>>> right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to the extent that the >>>> circulation of religiously offensive images may be inflammatory. >>>> >>>> Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to protect privacy, it >>>> will be extended by the back door to serve politics. Darkness parading as >>>> white knight – an irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that the >>>> “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, subject to neither judicial >>>> nor political review, and thus likely to be much more sweeping than the >>>> official one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its need to >>>> sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will apply the “precautionary >>>> principle” quite broadly, given that he has no interest whatever in the >>>> content, and he may even provide the service for free. The state threat to >>>> shut the provider down is disproportionate and effective. >>>> >>>> * >>>> >>>> PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by Poincaré not to >>>> have a unique or absolute solution, but to be inherently chaotic. >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Aldo Matteucci >> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >> Switzerland >> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 00:20:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:20:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Religiously objectionable material on the internet In-Reply-To: <4F1503F2.9070902@gmail.com> References: <4F1503F2.9070902@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is excellent Pranesh. Please keep us informed of the continuous developments in the courts in New Delhi. Thank you for the links :) Sala On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Ajit Prakash Shah < ajitprakashshah at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > Having been present in the Delhi High court during the hearings > yesterday, I can say with some amount of certainty that the judge did > *not* call Google a beneficiary of illegal activities as reported under: > > "Google also said that the Indian subsidiary cannot be held responsible > for an act by its parent company. The judge was not impressed with this > argument. "Are you not a beneficiary of Google Inc's business? If some > illegal activity is being carried out by a tenant and the landlord is a > beneficiary, then how can the landlord not know what's happening?" he > asked." > > So, some of these sensationalist reports should be taken with a dollop > of salt. The judge *asked* Google's counsel whether Google can be said > to have benefited, and the respondent's counsel argued that Google had > benefited, but the judge did *not* assert that Google had benefited. > > I found these to be more informed opinions: > > Amol Sharma, "Is India Ignoring Its Own Internet Protections?": > > > Rajeev Dhavan, a senior constitutional lawyer on this fiasco and how > judges are exercising powers they don't have: > > > Sajan Poovayya answers 5 questions on Indian Online Censorship: > (Note: I don't agree with Sajan on the bit on CDA, > etc.) > > It is important to remember that in this case, no one has seen the > offensive material apart from the complainant and the courts. The 21 > intermediaries that have been named have not yet seen the content that's > the subject matter of the complaint, nor have they been provided a list > of URLs, etc. Nor have the existing provisions of the Indian law been > used (howsoever bad the intermediary guidelines may be). > > Regards, > Pranesh > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [2012-01-17 10:22]: > > There are some other perspectives on the situation in New Delhi, visit > > the following links to read them: > > > > * > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Google-India-cant-act-like-totalitarian-China-regime/articleshow/11518897.cms > > > > * > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-triggered-the-case-against-facebook-google-167374 > > * > http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/censoring-social-media-curbs-free-speech-say-netizens-167402 > > * > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/googles-arguments-in-court-provoke-sharp-remarks-from-judge-167532 > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Aldo Matteucci > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The intersting question here is whether this is an instance > > under (2.i) - protect the rights or reputation of others. > > > > > > The second limb or test that you were referring to in La Rue’s > > Report refers to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil > > and Political Rights (ICCPR) which reads:- > > > > > > > > *Article 19* > > > > 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without > > interference. > > > > 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; > > this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart > > information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either > > orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any > > other media of his choice. > > > > 3. 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: > > > > 1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; > > > > 2. For the protection of national security or of public order > > (ordre public), or of public health or morals. > > > > (Underling and highlighting for emphasis are mine). Inherent within > > this Article is the notion that rights are not absolute. What is > > clear from this is that there is a sense or an express insinuation > > of "duties and responsibilities". I am of course thinking of what > > the drafters had in mind as they put these together and I can think > > of a number of illustrations some fiction and others hypotheticals:- > > > > * Consider Iran which holds the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie > > to be banned from entering Iran because it is their belief that > > it is offensive and an assault to their religious freedoms; > > * Consider Dan Brown's book the Da Vinci Code and the subsequent > > movie created from the book; > > > > There are many ways to perceive this situation. One is that Salman > > Rushdie and Da Vinci have the freedom and right to freely express > > himself in any shape or form. However there are those who may > > subscribe to views (usually religious views) who may feel offended > > from the type of material that is disseminated. For some the > > material may be too offensive and as such consider it their mission > > to speak out or to address the matter through protests, reforms etc. > > This is probably why you have laws that prohibit "obscene > > publications". The laws against obscene publications exist out of > > concern of the rights and respect for others. To use an "extreme" > > illustration, imagine a first tiered law firm where the Partners > > were interviewing people to hire as Associates, they would all be > > properly dressed in suits or formal wear and not in bikinis and > > slippers etc. In other words there is always a context - there is a > > place where you are free to dress as you please and in other > > environments social consciousness and unwritten codes demand that > > people act, dress or behave in a certain manner. > > > > There are some airports around the world that will not let you in if > > your shorts are above your knee. The point I am trying to illustrate > > is that rights are not void of responsibilities especially where > > these affects others. Determining the limitations of these is > > something that societies consciously (through Judgments in court or > > laws) or subconsciously constantly engage in. In Article 19 of the > > ICCPR highlights the limitations as those that are provided by law. > > In this instance, that is Vinay Rai's Petition as per the article, > > it appears that India has laws against obscene publications. So the > > crux of the matter would be whether the material is "obscene" in the > > eyes of the Courts in Delhi. > > > > > > > > The line apparently taken by Mr Raj is that the mere > > /*existence*/ or presence of offensive material on the net > > affects his "rights". He can cruise the net as long as he wants > > whitout these pictures imposing themselves on him - unless he > > deliberately clicks the offensive site. > > > > > > I am not taking Vinay Rai's side but am trying to understand where > > his petition is coming from. I am guessing that he holds the view > > that just as nation states can control products and services that > > enter India through Customs and Excise Authorities through > > international trade instruments, in the form of border control, that > > likewise India can determine the degree and nature of content that > > is accessible to the masses in India. Countries decide all the time > > what is allowed in and out of their country and in some instances > > there are contrabands where systems are stringent. > > > > Of course in the discussions on internet governance there are all > > kinds of debates and discussions from diverse perspectives. What are > > the various lenses within regulation of the internet should be > viewed:- > > > > 1. Is it self-regulating? > > 2. Should it be regulated nationally? > > 3. Should it be regulated internationally? > > > > > > > > I tend to disagree on your definition of "open site". "Open" is > > only something that I cannot avoid, or which is collateral to my > > going about my normal life. I'd have a right, it seems to me, > > not to have explicit adverts for sexuals favours appear on the > > right side of my eMail as I go about my correspondence. These > > adverts are thrust upon me irrespective of my will. Everything > > else is merely "accessible" and subject to my willful choice. I > > can exercise my choice in ways that avoid contact with material > > that is offensive to me. > > > > I see where you are coming from. I don't hold strong views on the > > same just enjoy deconstructing and reconsructing ideas and seeing > > the rationale behind positions. > > > > > > Best regards to Fiji > > last time I was there I saw Comm. Bainimarama play touch > > football across the street of Holiday Inn - it was his first day > > in power... > > > > > > Assuming this was the 6th December 2006 I was in Court during the > > State v Rabuka matter and remember witnessing the Judges committment > > to affirming the rule of law. Much has happened since and regards to > > your country as well. > > > > > > Best Regards from Fiji, > > > > Sala > > > > > > On 13 January 2012 21:21, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > Frank La Rue in his Report as Special Rapporteur is on > > record for stating that "any restriction to freedom of > > expression must meet the *strict criteria * under > > international human rights law". He went on to discuss at > > great lengths the restrictions of content on the internet in > > Part IV of the Report which can be found here: > > > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf > > > > La Rue was very careful to say the following:- > > > > *"As with offline content, when a restriction is imposed > > as an exceptional measure on online content, it must pass a > > three-part, cumulative test : * > > * > > * > > *(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and > > accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and > > transparency); * > > *(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article > > 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and > > Political Rights , namely: (i) to protect the rights or > > reputations of others; (ii) to protect national security or > > public order, or public health or morals (principle of > > legitimacy); and* > > * (3) it must be proven as necessary and the > > least restrictive means required to achieve the purported > > aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). In > > addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom > > of expression must be applied by a body which is independent > > of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted > > influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor > > discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards > > against abuse,including the possibility of challenge and > > remedy against its abusive application."* > > * > > * > > Having tried to access New Delhi's Legal Database, I noted > > that nothing has been published on the site as yet. However, > > presuming that what is reported in the article is true that > > there was a Private Criminal Matter in the District Court of > > New Delhi and in light of the reported unsuccessful stay in > > the High Court and brief mention of India's Penal Code on on > > "obscene publications". > > > > In India's case Vinay Rai's Petition (caveat: I have not > > read the Petition but based on the presumption that what was > > sparsely reported is true) fulfills the first test. It will > > be interesting though to see how Courts all over the world > > have defined "publication". > > > > The difference between postal traffic and emails are that > > they have an intended audience as opposed to having open > > sites etc. I am not taking sides in this matter but am > > interested in seeing the rationale and various philosophies > > that lie behind any decision making process. > > > > It may be worthwhile to organise a Webinar or Debate on the > > matter if someone is willing to lend their facilities for > > free to enable this, we can try and get La Rue to > > participate and have a few volunteers etc > > > > Sala > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Aldo Matteucci > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Religiously objectionable material on the internet > > > > /Posted on January 13, 2012/ by /Aldo Matteucci > > / > > > > > > > > > > The following report from India[1] > > < > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/religiously-objectionable-material-on-the-internet/#_ftn1 > > > > has reached me: “/The Delhi High Court on Thursday > > warned social networking site Facebook India and search > > engine Google India that websites can be “blocked” like > > in China if they fail to devise a mechanism to check and > > remove objectionable material from their web pages/.” > > (…) “/The case centres on a petition filed in December > > by a man named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene > > depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, > > and various Hindu deities. In response, a Delhi > > magistrate summoned the executives of 21 companies and > > suggested they face trial for criminal conspiracy/.” > > > > If the issue as described above is the whole story, what > > is now before the Delhi High Court (DHC) adds a twist to > > the age old issue of the *responsibility of the > > provider* (of the transmission support) for the content > > that is transmitted. Take two equivalent cases: > > > > * Assume “objectionable” material is sent through the > > /mail/. Is the Post Office bound to vet the content > > of every letter? Would the DHC block postal traffic > > if the Post Office fails to devise mechanisms to > > check and remove objectionable material? I doubt the > > DHC would act in this way. > > * Assume “objectionable” material is put in an > > “advertisement section” of a paper. Is the newspaper > > bound to vet the content of each /advertisement/? I > > suspect jurisprudence says it does. > > > > Different standards are upheld – depending on the > > judicially perceived feasibility of “vetting”, and, I’d > > say, the prejudice of the court. If the Postal Office > > belongs to my country’s friendly Crown, it will get off > > easily when it declares itself unable to do the vetting. > > Internet providers are all-powerful “foreign devils”. > > > > But the core issue before the DHC seems to me actually > > to be another one. In the olden days the main issue was > > one of (political and morals) censorship – the state vs. > > the individual. The DHC case and other similar cases, > > however, appear to refer to *Government involvement on > > behalf of privacy rights of third parties*. > > > > * “Objectionable” material about real places and > > people is put into a /novel/ – e.g. the novel is set > > in sea resort, which is described as “dreary”. Or a > > hideous crime is described as taking place in a > > named neighborhood. Is the publisher bound to vet > > the content of the novel, lest such “collateral” > > comments be judged defamatory? It is, apparently: in > > France a host of lawyers go through a novel to purge > > it of any derogatory material it may contain > > regarding real persons and places. I suspect that > > Baudelaire’s quip: “/pauvre/ /Belgique/” or Zola’s > > social novels would no longer be permitted to see > > the printer’s ink, nowadays. > > * A gyration of this is taking place in Switzerland, > > where GoogleMap has been enjoined to blank out faces > > and number plates of cars in front of buildings it > > has photographed. > > > > A similar scenario appears now to be before the DHC. The > > DHC is not asked to protect the interests of the state > > (India is a secular state) but ostensibly to protect the > > rights of private persons – those of Mr Vinay Rai and > > religious people like him – in this case to have his > > religious feelings untrammeled by offensive images. > > > > Please note the extensive interpretation of the right. > > Protection extends, beyond immediate exposure to > > offensive material, to the very notion that this > > material exists and is available. Mr. Vinay Rai need not > > see the offensive pictures, while he surfs the net, and > > he will not, unless he actively seeks them. He objects > > to the very fact that they be there, protected by just a > > click from unwary eyes. Formulated in another way, the > > enforcement of morals – no longer much of a public issue > > – remerges as conflict over private rights. > > > > The DHC seems to argue that there is a privately held > > right to have the state censor religiously offensive > > material – which is available /on demand/ – in order to > > protect “personal feelings”. If this is the case, then > > holding such material in the privacy of the home would > > also fall under the right. > > > > The Swiss Hugh Court has ruled that assisted suicide – > > which is legal in the country – could not be carried out > > in the privacy of a specified building because this > > activity infringed on the right of the plaintiff to pass > > undisturbed. Mere awareness the act might be carried out > > inside justifies judicial intervention (would this right > > also extend to orgies?). A subsequent referendum > > validated the right to assisted suicide, so Isuspect the > > judgment will hardly be enforced – but it sets a > precedent. > > > > The battle over the “freedom of access” no longer is > > bilateral: between the individual and the (politically) > > oppressive state, but a triangular relation where the > > state is asked to intervene as a “protector of a private > > right”. It has a subsidiary interest in the matter to > > the extent that the circulation of religiously offensive > > images may be inflammatory. > > > > Cynically, once provider “vetting” is introduced to > > protect privacy, it will be extended by the back door to > > serve politics. Darkness parading as white knight – an > > irony fully worth of George Orwell. Note further that > > the “self-censorship” by a provider is unregulated, > > subject to neither judicial nor political review, and > > thus likely to be much more sweeping than the official > > one, which is bound by the Constitution as well as its > > need to sustain broad legitimacy. The provider will > > apply the “precautionary principle” quite broadly, given > > that he has no interest whatever in the content, and he > > may even provide the service for free. The state threat > > to shut the provider down is disproportionate and > effective. > > > > * > > > > PS: In astronomy a “three body problem” was proven by > > Poincaré not to have a unique or absolute solution, but > > to be inherently chaotic. > > > > [1] > > < > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/religiously-objectionable-material-on-the-internet/#_ftnref1 > > > > > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/google-facebook-case-govt-to-serve-summons-to-foreign-sites-166543 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Aldo Matteucci > > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > > Switzerland > > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 17 02:45:21 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:15:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Hi All It has been a very interesting discussion on Vint Cerf's op-ed on Internet as (not being) a human right. I had some conceptual troubles with the discussion for which reason I stayed out thus far. But Paul's reinterpreting the discussion gives me a point of departure. Two (very different) kinds of people have opposed terming access to the Internet as a human right. One category is of tech/ Internet-enthusiast who otherwise argue so much about how the Internet has fundamentally transformed the world and so on. The other kind are among those who work with issues of devleopment and poverty and find it a bit far-fetched to speak of the Internet as a right given the present socio-economic scenario they witness around them. It is very important to see that the 'objections' of these two groups are of a /very /different nature. I think Internet should be seen as a right, but I have sympathies for the views of the second group above, because I can understand why they think as they do. They see people around them deprived of such basic things that to them it looks almost a bit insensitive to speak of the Internet as a right. However, they have perhaps not given much deep thought to how the Internet is fundamentally and structurally transforming social relationship, in a manner that impacts all, whether on the Internet or not. However, as I said, I do sympathise with this group of people, and the reason why they are averse to talking about a right to the internet. My real issue is with those who otherwise speak no end about the transformatory impact of the Internet, and how the Internet is the best thing to have happened to human beings for a long long time, but are hesitant to use the terminology of 'rights' vis a vis the Internet. We need to understand why they do so? I have followed postings of people like McTim on this list who instinctively draw back from a 'rights' terminology regarding the Internet, while their own lives seem deeply steeped in things Internet. Let me attempt a simple response to the quandary I posed. The problem I think with many if not most people of this category/ group is that when one speaks of 'rights' very soon after one can be expected to speak about 'law'; and they just kind of hate application of human (political) law to the Internet. (as if the Internet is not already an artefact subject to various kinds of human will and interests.) This, in my view, is the real problem with the 'rights' terminology for this group. They see the Internet purely as a domain of private relationships and contracts between individuals, who are somehow seen as automatically and equally empowered by the technology, which is of course a dangerous myth. This new 'free', 'open' and 'unencumbered' cyberspace that allows myriad private relationships and contracts is sought to replace the 'social contract' which underlies our polities and our laws. So of course there is no need for a social contract or of laws regarding the Internet. Internet is itself the law giver or rather the law replacer. Which is also why many of them do not speak of citizens, or people of humans in relation to the Internet, we have the term 'users' - people defined in relation to the Internet rather than the other way around. The term 'rights' simply doesn't sit too well with this world view, other than perhaps a very abstracted and disembodied version of human rights, released from their connection with polities and law, the kind that is too often heard spoken of in Internet governance spaces. All of the above is not necessarily a precise critique of the Vint Cerf's article as such, but these are the thoughts that arise in my mind on reading it, and the subsequent discussion. When one takes up the pen, or the keyboard, to write an op-ed with the heading 'Internet access is not a human right' one would generally have a compelling reason behind it. Frankly, I havent been able to divine the reason that propelled Vint in this case. I am sure he was not simply interested in interrogating conceptual issues around rights, need of horses and the such. So, why did he really take the trouble to write this article, is something I am not clear about. What problem was he addressing (as a techie, such clarity of thought must be native to him)? Parminder On Tuesday 17 January 2012 09:21 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or > any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the > "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. > But Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, > Inc., strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no > right to access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by > Google, Inc. Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that > enables "real" rights such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently > considers anyone denied the Internet by arbitrary government action, > for example, to have been deprived of nothing they have a right to > access. Would a religious "evangelist" take the same attitude about > accessing the Bible, and think that the right to freedom of religion > did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in either print or > electronic form? > > I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the > same time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of > Google's business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's > statements are considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's > famous statements to the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing > Google's classic search engine business with its newer Android-based > strategy, focused on giving Android away to cell phone companies for > free, because of the extremely lucrative market thus made available to > Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone users: > > "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer > their questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell > them what they should be doing next."* > > Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info > Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, > roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." > [And, thanks to Android GPS capabilities, they know where you > are, within a tolerance of about one foot, if you carry an > Android "smart"phone.] > > Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is > reasonably clear: They already have extremely detailed data on > each user, and they want to use all of that data to push ads in > front of users allegedly targeted to what Google "already knows" > they want, and sell many "heads ups" to local restaurants and > other "opportunities" in the physical vicinity of wherever the > Android user may happen to be. > > If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes > sense of Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] > what [to do] next") then we can understand why Google, via their > official public face and Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would > try to evangelize against Internet access rights in the January 4, > 2012 New York Times: *Any such "right to access" the Internet is > clearly a potential interference with Google's business plan to > reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks we want from the > Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on the voluminous > data Google routinely collects on users. > > You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, > and do our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it > knows better than we do, and even goes so far as to claim that > it's what we really want from Google, in the end: for Google to > tell us all what to do. > > Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much > prefer to tell Google /where to go/, than to have Google tell them > what to do. > > But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google > that is choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of > our faces that it can be said that the "Internet" as we now know > it is no longer accessible to us, only an edited and targeted > shadow of the Internet chosen by Google is accessible to us, as a > practical matter, on our devices. This is not too hard to > imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a > "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably > personalized and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. > Perhaps (and this is only a maybe) we could still get to the "full > Internet" if we are committed to doing so and know what we are > doing, but to do so we will have to wade past Google's > paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, and > past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to > provide them with information, they want google to tell them what > to do." > > > Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not > in conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the > Internet. Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the > Internet aside, he indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his > employer, Google, and in this particular context, Mr. Cerf is not > speaking as a true evangelist for the Internet, he is speaking out > of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision and profitability of > his employer, Google Inc. > > Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet > users, in which they decide for us what we should do next, and > presume that we don't really want Google to simply provide > information at our choosing, will one day give new meaning to the > phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be spelled Serfing the > Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic exposition on their > new internet reality in which one's rights of access to the > Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or > operating system) one is born on or born into. > > The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very > precipice of being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of > the Internet. Lords do not simply answer searching questions, > Lords tell us what we should be doing next. Evangelists hope and > pray that ALL will access the Internet or the Bible, but by saying > there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. Serf is made > himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and abandoned > his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 03:16:45 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:16:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? Message-ID: Paul, you made such an intellectual somersault from "access to the net as human right" to "Google wants to tell them what they should be doing next" - I have a hard time following. Google's vision is "to organize information on the net and make it accessible". It does it for free, hoping to satisfice the individual who searches, the advertiser, and its shareholders. There is nothing in this vision about controlling the access - just reshuffling the net information in way Google thinks is suitable to you. Their vision is a virtual avatar of "all the news fit to print" that graces the title side of the NYT. Google is the net version of the free-grab junk papers you get for free at railway and bus stations. These junk papers are destroying the staid daylies, by satisficing most people's demand for news. The content is "tits and bits" soudbites and soundtrites. 90% of social networking is gossip. "Noise" rather than information. Is there a "human right to the NYT"? I doubt it. Does Google's approach change society? You bet. What can we do about it? Certainly not by elitistically clamoring "human rights". In fact, it is a case of "just deserts" ever since Eve and Adam bit into the apple the news were "elite-driven" kings, battles, and big rites. Now the masses, through their earning power and day-to-day decisions decide also for themselves what's "fit to be on top of a google search". you better get used to it. The political problem is "natural monopoly" as more people google google becomes the only game in town. Just as Windows DOS has exterminates alternatives probably with methods akin to those of JDRockefeller as he built up Standard Oil a "natural monopoly" might allow "natural populism" to emerge as people graze of newsbits, rather than spend energy on thinking. So what else is new? Most of our brain activities are unconscious, to save energy needed to decide... the world (not you and me maybe) may even think it's an improvement Aldo On 17 January 2012 04:51, Paul Lehto wrote: > > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any > other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the > "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But > Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., > strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to > access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. > Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights > such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the > Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived > of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" > take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right > to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in > either print or electronic form? > > I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the same > time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's > business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are > considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to > the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine > business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android > away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative > market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone > users: > > > > "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their >> questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell them what they >> should be doing next."* >> >> Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has >> collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care >> about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS >> capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one >> foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] >> >> > Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably > clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they > want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly > targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads > ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical > vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. > > If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of > Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") > then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and > Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against > Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any such > "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference with > Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks > we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on the > voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. > > You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do > our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than > we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from > Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. > > Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer to > tell Google *where to go*, than to have Google tell them what to do. > > But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that is > choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that it > can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer accessible > to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen by Google > is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. This is not > too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a > "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably personalized > and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps (and this is > only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we are committed > to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will have to wade > past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, > and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to provide > them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." > > > > Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in > conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. > Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he > indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this > particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the > Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision > and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. > > Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in > which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't > really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one > day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be > spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic > exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to > the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or > operating system) one is born on or born into. > > > The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice of > being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords do > not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be > doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or > the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. > Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and > abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. > > > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 04:42:43 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:42:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Who is the "government" in your scenario, and "whose" money does it spend? > > If it is legitimate government, then it is "our" government, spending "our" money. ("Our" is the grammatically parallel term for "We" as in "We the People") If it is "our" money, then "we" get to say how those money are spent. It is quite obvious, that although "Internet access" is sort of universal service and that it is quite popular, it is far from everyone, who wants to have Internet access. Internet access has already became huge industry and "nationalizing" it is at least not practical -- however many Governments dream of. Your explanations strike an similarity between right to "internet access" and "right to food". Now imagine, that we talk about food. Food, has always been precious resource for humanity. Whoever has access to more food is richer, can afford more etc. This is so, because everyone needs to feed and do it regularly. Few thoughts about "food": - fact is, every Government claims to provide "free food" for those in need. - fact is, in every country, there are people starving. In few countries those people are less, but they do exist. - in all cases where there is "free food" provided it is of relatively limited nature. If you are producer of food, you will not agree "government money" (that is, your money) to be spent driving you out of business. - whatever a Government provides, it has extremely high bureaucracy costs associated. - in most cases, it is not the government that provides free food, but various groups of people (often called charitable societies). Those groups buy or produce food with their own efforts, eventually convincing others to donate. Therefore, "free, Government provided access to " is a myth. There is of course, a "right" of everyone to access Internet and all the good (and bad) things it can bring to their lives. This is the sole reason we do build the Internet -- so that everyone can use it. But I fail to see how Governments can help. For the known Internet history, they have been more on the disruptive side of the equation. Internet, by it's nature is not a monopoly. If your ISP does not like you, it is your choice to select someone else. There is great competition to provide Internet services and this is good for both you and for the ISP. It is ironic, that you say "legitimate Government" is ok. It turns out, that about the only parties identified so far to consider restrictions of Internet access are Governments. All of them. For the sole purpose to "defend" themselves from this phenomena they don't quite understand - the Internet. Is the US Government legitimate? Then why does it want SOPA? Daniel PS: Internet's "virality" has it's roots in the humans and the specific property of Internet that allows everyone to participate. Governments got the "participate" part and tried to restrict who builds Internet by introducing all sorts of licensing schemes. Some declared victory at the time, but now realize that this thing is not possible to control -- humans will willingly participate in "illegal" (that is, not accepting to be restricted by Government imposed licenses) activities -- for they want access to Internet. If this is human rights, how come Governments do everything possible to deny it? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Jan 17 04:49:20 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:49:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and find out what SOPA means to them. - - - On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling > about it. > > In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if > the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. > And that i very much support. > > But who is going to miss them during the strike? > > a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how > distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and > beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or > > b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will > breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired > that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. > > As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object > either way. > > avri > - - - > > On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Donny Shaw > > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > > To: > > > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. > Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet > censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > > > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, > Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform > and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. > If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > > > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > > > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > > > > > > Thank You! > > > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 05:01:43 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:31:43 +0430 Subject: [governance] FW: This just in: Obama puts SOPA on pause In-Reply-To: <42853A0A997A49248BF71829415C3AF0@UserVAIO> References: <42853A0A997A49248BF71829415C3AF0@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the following article on Mashable: *The White House and SOPA: reading between the lines'. * It seems that U.S. legislation aimed at curbing online piracy is likely to be scaled back or rejected. Here is the entire article: http://mashable.com/2012/01/16/obama-sopa-position/ The White House has finally given a detailed explanation of its stance on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). In a blog post responding to a petition posted on the White House’s website, the Obama Administration clearly laid out what it would – and would not – support in any new legislation designed to combat online piracy. “While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response,” said the note, “we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” Taken at face value, that sounds like a check in the “win” column for the opponents of SOPA/PIPA. But if the White House agrees that online piracy is a significant problem, what *will* they support to fix it? The White House’s post was chock-full of little details on what the administration wants from any future legislation on the issue. ------------------------------ No Excessive Censorship or Curtailing of American Innovation ------------------------------ “Any effort to combat online piracy,” read the post, “must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.” Given the importance of the tech industry to the overall American economy, it’s no surprise that the Obama administration wants to be careful not to stifle digital innovation happening in the U.S. Later, the post goes on to say that any provision dealing with online businesses such as advertising companies, payment processors or search engines “must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.” On one hand, this language could help assuage the fears of the tech industry, which has coalesced together around its near-unanimous disapproval of SOPA/PIPA. On the other, the White House is not suggesting that online businesses (like the payment processors or search engines mentioned above) should be exempt from digital piracy legislation. Owners of those kind of businesses may find that unsettling. ------------------------------ Scope of Legislation ------------------------------ The Obama administration said it will only accept a law which solely targets websites operating “beyond the reach of current U.S. law.” On first pass, that could be read in two ways: *1.* Current law can’t target websites operating out of the U.S., so a new law should address foreign websites only. *2.* A new law should address domestic websites which aren’t targeted by current American law. However, the White House goes on to explain that a new law should only cover “activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws.” That means the language about sites outside the reach of current U.S. law is more likely a call for legislation to combat infringement on foreign sites, not for sweeping new legislation to replace currently existing laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). ------------------------------ Precision & Understanding ------------------------------ The White House doesn’t want a legislative sledgehammer that could be used to play “whack-a-mole” with reckless abandon against potentially infringing websites. Instead, it calls for a law that is “effectively tailored,” has regard for due process and is focused solely on outright criminal activity. That suggests a desire for more precise punishment mechanisms than those called for in SOPA/PIPA. It also demands of Congress a more intimate understanding of the Internet in general. That echoes a major complaint of the anti-SOPA crowd, who have found Congress to be less than adequately knowledgable about technology issues. ------------------------------ Internet Security & Stability ------------------------------ The White House is adamantly against interfering with the Doman Name System (DNS), a sort of “phone book” for the Internet. It cites cybersecurity as a major concern, while noting that attempts to stop piracy through DNS mechanisms would fail outright. “We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet,” reads the post. “Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online.” Removing or rerouting infringing sites’ DNS requests was originally one the main punishment mechanisms in SOPA/PIPA, and the part of the bills considered most onerous by many in the tech community. However, the authors of both bills announced late last week that they would remove any provisions related to DNS. ------------------------------ Non-Legislative Solutions ------------------------------ The White House believes that online piracy isn’t just a matter to be dealt with in Congress. Instead, it feels that content creators and Internet businesses should figure out methods to deal with the problem on their own. “We expect and encourage,” said the post, “all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.” What “voluntary measures” and “best practices,” exactly? That’s left up to those with a stake in the issue to decide amongst themselves. ------------------------------ Into The Future ------------------------------ The White House rounds out the post by calling for public and open dialogue between the public and Congress on the issue of digital piracy. They invited the organizer of the petition and a few of its signees to a conference about online piracy. “Rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right.” And later in the post, “Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders.” The administration also calls for any future legislation to have vast bipartisan support. ------------------------------ Where is SOPA now? ------------------------------ Currently, SOPA sits on the legislative sidelines. The House resumes session this week, but according to *The Guardian *, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told an anti-SOPA colleague that there would be no vote on the matter “unless there is consensus on the bill.” An anti-SOPA rally in New York is still being planned for Wednesday. Many popular websites, including Reddit and Wikipedia, will join in with a blackout in protest of SOPA. *Mashable* will be reporting from the scene. The MPAA, Hollywood’s lobbying organization, released a statement Friday in which it reaffirms its belief that neither SOPA nor PIPA infringe upon Americans’ freedom of speech. The White House statement was signed by Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget Victoria Espinel, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra and Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff Howard Schmidt. Do you agree with the White House’s requirements for digital piracy legislation? Let us know in the comments below. On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:11 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > http://ct.techrepublic.com/clicks?t=1116143197-6d0bee25f1f62d049a797cfceaf73 > 1f3-bf&brand=TECHREPUBLIC&s=5 > > [snip] > > "Below are 4 passages that the White House has emphasized with bold text > in the response: > > Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of > online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by > our dynamic businesses large and small. > > We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the > underlying architecture of the Internet. > > That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together > to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights > holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. > borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this > response. > > This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage > all private parties, including both content creators and Internet > platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and > best practices to reduce online piracy." > > [big snip] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Nariné Khachatryan Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia http://www.immasin.am http://www.safe.am/ http://www.mediaeducation.am/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 05:18:57 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:18:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6883A53BA8944E87B5F218F21E15EDCA@UserVAIO> Daniel, "Our money" is no more "ours" than "our language" somehow "belongs" to us as property... Money is a social convention, backed up by a huge range of social values, norms, practices, rules etc.etc. Without all of those conventions money is meaningless or at least is no more of value than the leaves on the trees that it at times resembles. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:43 AM To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: Who is the "government" in your scenario, and "whose" money does it spend? If it is legitimate government, then it is "our" government, spending "our" money. ("Our" is the grammatically parallel term for "We" as in "We the People") If it is "our" money, then "we" get to say how those money are spent. It is quite obvious, that although "Internet access" is sort of universal service and that it is quite popular, it is far from everyone, who wants to have Internet access. Internet access has already became huge industry and "nationalizing" it is at least not practical -- however many Governments dream of. Your explanations strike an similarity between right to "internet access" and "right to food". Now imagine, that we talk about food. Food, has always been precious resource for humanity. Whoever has access to more food is richer, can afford more etc. This is so, because everyone needs to feed and do it regularly. Few thoughts about "food": - fact is, every Government claims to provide "free food" for those in need. - fact is, in every country, there are people starving. In few countries those people are less, but they do exist. - in all cases where there is "free food" provided it is of relatively limited nature. If you are producer of food, you will not agree "government money" (that is, your money) to be spent driving you out of business. - whatever a Government provides, it has extremely high bureaucracy costs associated. - in most cases, it is not the government that provides free food, but various groups of people (often called charitable societies). Those groups buy or produce food with their own efforts, eventually convincing others to donate. Therefore, "free, Government provided access to " is a myth. There is of course, a "right" of everyone to access Internet and all the good (and bad) things it can bring to their lives. This is the sole reason we do build the Internet -- so that everyone can use it. But I fail to see how Governments can help. For the known Internet history, they have been more on the disruptive side of the equation. Internet, by it's nature is not a monopoly. If your ISP does not like you, it is your choice to select someone else. There is great competition to provide Internet services and this is good for both you and for the ISP. It is ironic, that you say "legitimate Government" is ok. It turns out, that about the only parties identified so far to consider restrictions of Internet access are Governments. All of them. For the sole purpose to "defend" themselves from this phenomena they don't quite understand - the Internet. Is the US Government legitimate? Then why does it want SOPA? Daniel PS: Internet's "virality" has it's roots in the humans and the specific property of Internet that allows everyone to participate. Governments got the "participate" part and tried to restrict who builds Internet by introducing all sorts of licensing schemes. Some declared victory at the time, but now realize that this thing is not possible to control -- humans will willingly participate in "illegal" (that is, not accepting to be restricted by Government imposed licenses) activities -- for they want access to Internet. If this is human rights, how come Governments do everything possible to deny it? !DSPAM:2676,4f1542d0223771260046400! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 17 05:33:58 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:03:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F154E96.4030208@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 17 January 2012 01:15 PM, parminder wrote: > snip > > All of the above is not necessarily a precise critique of the Vint > Cerf's article as such, but these are the thoughts that arise in my > mind on reading it, and the subsequent discussion. When one takes up > the pen, or the keyboard, to write an op-ed with the heading 'Internet > access is not a human right' one would generally have a compelling > reason behind it. Frankly, I havent been able to divine the reason > that propelled Vint in this case. I am sure he was not simply > interested in interrogating conceptual issues around rights, need of > horses and the such. So, why did he really take the trouble to write > this article, is something I am not clear about. What problem was he > addressing (as a techie, such clarity of thought must be native to him)? And in case interrogating the conceptual categories around human rights and Internet as a technology was the intention of the article, a few more comments: One, I find the article rather confused about the terms human rights and civil rights, especially the latter. Second, it is also not quite on the spot about what one means by the Internet when one speaks of a right to the Internet. One doesnt mean necessarily a specific technology, IP/ TCP protocol or whatever. The wider world today understands by the Internet, a techno-social paradigm, which certainly is not transitory. It is here to stay, a permanent part of what human civilisation is and will be. Whether we take Internet to mean, (1) in a relatively narrower sense, a versatile p2p horizontal platform of seamless communication and interaction, or (2) in a broader sense, as a new 'space' of human action (the cyberspace?) The precise technical nature of the two above may change (and we would increasingly be quite unmindful of the underlying technology, as we may not be too bothered about what fuel may run a motor), but the broad techno-social nature of the 'internet' and its social implications have enough specificity already formed for it to be permanent and sufficiently 'recognisable/ fixable' part of our societies, as language and the written word are (around which, for instance, the right to education is formed). Parminder > > Parminder > > > On Tuesday 17 January 2012 09:21 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or >> any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to >> the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the >> Bible. But Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for >> Google, Inc., strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people >> have "no right to access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise >> for by Google, Inc. Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology >> that enables "real" rights such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently >> considers anyone denied the Internet by arbitrary government action, >> for example, to have been deprived of nothing they have a right to >> access. Would a religious "evangelist" take the same attitude about >> accessing the Bible, and think that the right to freedom of religion >> did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in either print or >> electronic form? >> >> I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the >> same time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of >> Google's business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's >> statements are considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's >> famous statements to the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing >> Google's classic search engine business with its newer Android-based >> strategy, focused on giving Android away to cell phone companies for >> free, because of the extremely lucrative market thus made available >> to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone users: >> >> "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer >> their questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell >> them what they should be doing next."* >> >> Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info >> Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, >> roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." >> [And, thanks to Android GPS capabilities, they know where you >> are, within a tolerance of about one foot, if you carry an >> Android "smart"phone.] >> >> Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is >> reasonably clear: They already have extremely detailed data on >> each user, and they want to use all of that data to push ads in >> front of users allegedly targeted to what Google "already knows" >> they want, and sell many "heads ups" to local restaurants and >> other "opportunities" in the physical vicinity of wherever the >> Android user may happen to be. >> >> If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes >> sense of Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] >> what [to do] next") then we can understand why Google, via their >> official public face and Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, >> would try to evangelize against Internet access rights in the >> January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any such "right to access" the >> Internet is clearly a potential interference with Google's >> business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks >> we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on >> the voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. >> >> You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, >> and do our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it >> knows better than we do, and even goes so far as to claim that >> it's what we really want from Google, in the end: for Google to >> tell us all what to do. >> >> Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much >> prefer to tell Google /where to go/, than to have Google tell >> them what to do. >> >> But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google >> that is choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of >> our faces that it can be said that the "Internet" as we now know >> it is no longer accessible to us, only an edited and targeted >> shadow of the Internet chosen by Google is accessible to us, as a >> practical matter, on our devices. This is not too hard to >> imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a >> "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably >> personalized and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. >> Perhaps (and this is only a maybe) we could still get to the >> "full Internet" if we are committed to doing so and know what we >> are doing, but to do so we will have to wade past Google's >> paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, and >> past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to >> provide them with information, they want google to tell them what >> to do." >> >> >> Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if >> not in conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of >> the Internet. Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to >> the Internet aside, he indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his >> employer, Google, and in this particular context, Mr. Cerf is not >> speaking as a true evangelist for the Internet, he is speaking >> out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision and >> profitability of his employer, Google Inc. >> >> Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet >> users, in which they decide for us what we should do next, and >> presume that we don't really want Google to simply provide >> information at our choosing, will one day give new meaning to the >> phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be spelled Serfing the >> Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic exposition on their >> new internet reality in which one's rights of access to the >> Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or >> operating system) one is born on or born into. >> >> The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very >> precipice of being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of >> the Internet. Lords do not simply answer searching questions, >> Lords tell us what we should be doing next. Evangelists hope and >> pray that ALL will access the Internet or the Bible, but by >> saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. Serf is >> made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and >> abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 05:38:23 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:08:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, Aldo really needs no introduction, but may be a new 'character' for some of you. At Diplo, Aldo is our "resident contrarian", tasked with challenging dominant discourses, views and cliches. As the deputy secretary general of EFTA he negotiated many trade agreements, but beyond his core expertise in trade diplomacy, Aldo is a Renaissance person with a background and interest in philosophy, literature and policy-making. His particular strength is in in applying philosophical thinking to practical problems. On his blog http://deepdip.wordpress.com/author/aldomat/ you can find his reflections on trade issues (WTO), financial crisis, climate change, governance and diplomacy. From the calmness of his home in Bern, shielded from today's frenetic working tempo, Aldo regularly provides us with a "zoom out" view of our fast-changing modern reality. I am sure that he will enrich discussions on this list and in the IG community. I have a hard time figuring out where I stand on some of these issues, so I find reading the discussions to be both interesting and informative. Thanks, everyone, and welcome, Aldo! 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 17 January 2012 03:46, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Paul, > > you made such an intellectual somersault from "access to the net as human > right" to "Google wants to tell them what they should be doing next" - I > have a hard time following. > > Google's vision is "to organize information on the net and make it > accessible". It does it for free, hoping to satisfice the individual who > searches, the advertiser, and its shareholders. > > There is nothing in this vision about controlling the access - just > reshuffling the net information in way Google thinks is suitable to you. > Their vision is a virtual avatar of "all the news fit to print" that > graces the title side of the NYT. > > Google is the net version of the free-grab junk papers you get for free at > railway and bus stations. > These junk papers are destroying the staid daylies, by satisficing most > people's demand for news. The content is "tits and bits" > soudbites and soundtrites. 90% of social networking is gossip. "Noise" > rather than information. > > Is there a "human right to the NYT"? I doubt it. > Does Google's approach change society? > You bet. > What can we do about it? > Certainly not by elitistically clamoring "human rights". > > In fact, it is a case of "just deserts" > ever since Eve and Adam bit into the apple > the news were "elite-driven" > kings, battles, and big rites. > Now the masses, through their earning power and day-to-day decisions > decide also for themselves what's "fit to be on top of a google search". > you better get used to it. > > The political problem is "natural monopoly" > as more people google > google becomes the only game in town. > > Just as Windows DOS has exterminates alternatives > probably with methods akin to those of JDRockefeller as he built up > Standard Oil > > a "natural monopoly" might allow "natural populism" to emerge > as people graze of newsbits, rather than spend energy on thinking. > > So what else is new? > Most of our brain activities are unconscious, to save energy needed to > decide... > the world (not you and me maybe) may even think it's an improvement > > Aldo > > > > > > > > > On 17 January 2012 04:51, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> >> It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any >> other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the >> "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But >> Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., >> strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to >> access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. >> Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights >> such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the >> Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived >> of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" >> take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right >> to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in >> either print or electronic form? >> >> I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the same >> time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's >> business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are >> considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to >> the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine >> business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android >> away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative >> market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone >> users: >> >> >> >> "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their >>> questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell them what they >>> should be doing next."* >>> >>> Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has >>> collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care >>> about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS >>> capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one >>> foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] >>> >>> >>> Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably >> clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they >> want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly >> targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads >> ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical >> vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. >> >> If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of >> Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") >> then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and >> Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against >> Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any such >> "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference with >> Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks >> we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on the >> voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. >> >> You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do >> our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than >> we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from >> Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. >> >> Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer to >> tell Google *where to go*, than to have Google tell them what to do. >> >> But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that is >> choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that it >> can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer accessible >> to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen by Google >> is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. This is not >> too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a >> "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably personalized >> and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps (and this is >> only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we are committed >> to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will have to wade >> past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, >> and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to provide >> them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." >> >> >> >> Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in >> conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. >> Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he >> indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this >> particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the >> Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision >> and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. >> >> Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in >> which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't >> really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one >> day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be >> spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic >> exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to >> the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or >> operating system) one is born on or born into. >> >> >> The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice of >> being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords do >> not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be >> doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or >> the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. >> Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and >> abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 17 06:33:32 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:33:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: (message from Daniel Kalchev on Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:42:43 +0200) References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20120117113333.0695215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Your explanations strike an similarity between right to "internet > access" and "right to food". Now imagine, that we talk about > food. Food, has always been precious resource for humanity. Whoever > has access to more food is richer, can afford more etc. This is so, > because everyone needs to feed and do it regularly. > > Few thoughts about "food": > > - fact is, every Government claims to provide "free food" for those in need. > - fact is, in every country, there are people starving. In few > countries those people are less, but they do exist. > - in all cases where there is "free food" provided it is of > relatively limited nature. If you are producer of food, you will > not agree "government money" (that is, your money) to be spent > driving you out of business. > - whatever a Government provides, it has extremely high bureaucracy > costs associated. > - in most cases, it is not the government that provides free food, > but various groups of people (often called charitable societies). > Those groups buy or produce food with their own efforts, eventually > convincing others to donate. > > Therefore, "free, Government provided access to " is a myth. All of these statements are true. Nevertheless, the right to food is internationally recognized as a human right. Of course the assertion that this is a human right and its codification as international law has not caused food to be automatically provided when members of my family have a need to eat. More generally, I am very skeptical of the ability of any human government or legal system by itself to solve the various problems related to the production of food, its distribution, paying for the work involved, and (may I say it?) balancing (in ways that do not involve famines, wars, or other major injustices) the number of people who try to live on planet earth with the planet's capacity for sustainable food production. Nevertheless I would think if the legal system of any country does not recognize the right to food as a fundamental human right, that legal system is fundamentally broken. That would be a legal system that values e.g. the desire of Hollywood companies to "get paid for every copy of a film that someone views" more highly than the fundamental need of people to have food. It is true that with regard to some important needs of humans, governments find themselves unable to fully solve the relevant problems. So the choice is (a) to deny that these important needs are human rights, which has the effect of creating a skewed legal system in which the business interests of influential companies are valued more highly than these important needs of humans; or (b) to accept that these are human rights, while acknowledging that there are problems, that have not yet been fully solved, with empowering people to enjoy these rights. In my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that 'b' is the right choice, while I see an awful lot of 'a' happening in the practice of governments. I have no doubt that this is in significant part a result of the influence of companies who expect that their profits could decrease if governments were to put more emphasis on seeking to empower people to enjoy their human rights and less emphasis on providing a friendly environment to the companies who are paying those lobbyists. Google is such a company whose business is set up in such a way that it might easily suffer if the influence of the International Bill of Human Rights on Internet governance increases, since that would result in an increased emphasis and on matters of privacy and increasingly strict legislation in that area. I'm not able to speak about Vint Cerf's particular motivations for writing that essay, nor do I know whether he might be truly as ignorant about the International Bill of Human Rights as that essay gives the impression of him being. But I have spent a lot of time in another area of Internet governance on opposing efforts of lobbyists of another company (one lobbyist after the other, every few years a new one has taken over the role) who all of them have used the same strategy of muddying the waters by at least pretending to be ignorant in exactly the same way (that was obvious to someone like me who had actually thought the matter through, but that is not obvious at all to the government decision makers who lack either the intelligence or the personal interest to truly understand the issues. I have always treated these lobbyists with respect personally (while of course opposing much of what they were pushing for), and I do not regret having always sought to do this. But at the same time, I find it simply naive and unrealistic to expect company-paid lobbying to pursue any other objectives besides the company's business objectives. Why should Google's "Internet evangelist" be an exception to this rule? Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 17 07:12:42 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:42:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Access to the Internet and Human Rights In-Reply-To: <20120117113333.0695215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> References: <001701ccd486$e7ceaed0$b76c0c70$@apc.org> <28AFE004-0556-4A75-9ACE-5C40EDD62252@digsys.bg> <20120117113333.0695215C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4F1565BA.7010900@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 17 January 2012 05:03 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > snip > So the choice is > > (a) to deny that these important needs are human rights, which has > the effect of creating a skewed legal system in which the business > interests of influential companies are valued more highly than > these important needs of humans; or > > (b) to accept that these are human rights, while acknowledging that > there are problems, that have not yet been fully solved, with > empowering people to enjoy these rights. > This is precisely the point; whether Internet will 'primarily' be seen from an ordinary business/ economic point of view or from a rights based perspective. Education and health are two examples of areas where there is huge amount of business involved but get 'primarily' seen from a rights based perspective. This strongly influences the way these two sectors get governed. If they were primarily seem from a business/ economic point of view, they will have been governed very differently. This is the crux of the 'right to the Internet' debate. (However, it is also true that the Internet space does have unique qualities that makes it different from these two others sectors, and these unique features will influence what kind of rights based approach is appropriate for it.) Importantly, the phrase 'right to the Internet' is much broader than 'right to access the Internet' while including it. It means application of a rights based approach to all facets of the Internet, which could well include ensuring what has been called as 'search neutrality', overruling the justification of 'trade secret'. In the same way as all ingredient information about medicines has to be declared, but this does not apply for Coke. a relevant question could be; is the global knowledge architecture, which google is transforming into, an important area enough, like medicines, for people to have basic human rights (and not just consumer rights) vis a vis it? If so, what policies then it requires to ensure such rights? > snip > But I have spent a lot of time in another area of Internet governance > on opposing efforts of lobbyists of another company (one lobbyist > after the other, every few years a new one has taken over the role) > who all of them have used the same strategy of muddying the waters by > at least pretending to be ignorant in exactly the same way (that was > obvious to someone like me who had actually thought the matter > through, but that is not obvious at all to the government decision > makers who lack either the intelligence or the personal interest to > truly understand the issues. > I suspect I know the company you are referring to :). Have had the same experience with it myself. parminder > I have always treated these lobbyists with respect personally (while > of course opposing much of what they were pushing for), and I do not > regret having always sought to do this. > > But at the same time, I find it simply naive and unrealistic to expect > company-paid lobbying to pursue any other objectives besides the > company's business objectives. > > Why should Google's "Internet evangelist" be an exception to this > rule? > > Greetings, > Norbert > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jan 17 07:23:08 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:23:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0CA5AAE3-725B-42AE-9B67-BD3FF83C74AF@digsys.bg> On Jan 17, 2012, at 5:51 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in either print or electronic form? > Paul, While I agree in much of what you point out, it is evident from history, that many "evangelists" were of the thinking that masses should be told what to believe in, not read and understand themselves, for they may happen to read and understand not what the "evangelist" or their "church" preaches. But, just like with religion, where the experience and belief are strictly private, the same can be said about Internet. Different people see different things in Internet (even as technology) and they use Internet for quite different things. Even the same individuals at different points in time. We know what happened with Christian religion, when it was "regulated" and "monopolized" in the Middle Ages. Or one could say, when the religion and the Government married. Eventually, because it is natural phenomenon for everyone to express their own will, something we call "human rights" and because inherently evangelism is to be rebellious of the current system, things changed. So, on your last question, yes -- we have already seen this trough the ages. They say "The road to Evil is laid with good intentions" Daniel____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 07:56:21 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:56:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <0CA5AAE3-725B-42AE-9B67-BD3FF83C74AF@digsys.bg> References: <0CA5AAE3-725B-42AE-9B67-BD3FF83C74AF@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > But, just like with religion, where the experience and belief are strictly > private, the same can be said about Internet. Different people see > different things in Internet (even as technology) and they use Internet for > quite different things. Even the same individuals at different points in > time. > > I really doubt that Vinton Cerf, as chief Internet evangelist for Google, Inc., has any difficulty understanding or supporting *property rights* on the Internet, at least when he speaks officially as the "public face" of Google. Indeed, many business figures in relation to the Internet support an aggressive expansion of property rights and property rhetoric in what might be called their "Occupy Cyberspace" movement. Despite such aggressive assertions of property rights on the Internet, suddenly, when it comes to human rights on the Internet, Google and others have great difficulty conceptualizing rights in cyberspace? What gives, when property rights are "natural" to cyberspace but human rights are not? Of course, at one level, property rights concepts flow smoothly onto something seen as a mere "technology" or "tool", while human rights concepts do not flow quite as smoothly. Yet, as I think we all know, understanding the Internet as mere technology is an over-simplification of the phenomena of the Internet, to say the least. But, this oversimplification definitely works for the present purpose of facilitating the business expansion of entities such as Google by protecting their property rights and business expectations against any "infringement" by human rights claims regarding the Internet. Unfortunately, as I see it, Vinton Cerf is leveraging and thus bastardizing his status as a "Founding Father" of the Internet in service to Google's bid to dominate future cyberspace as its own fiefdom and Lordly domain. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 07:59:59 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:59:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 1/17/12, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > Two (very different) kinds of people have opposed terming access to the > Internet as a human right. One category is of tech/ Internet-enthusiast > who otherwise argue so much about how the Internet has fundamentally > transformed the world and so on. The other kind are among those who work > with issues of devleopment and poverty and find it a bit far-fetched to > speak of the Internet as a right given the present socio-economic > scenario they witness around them. It is very important to see that the > 'objections' of these two groups are of a /very /different nature. > > I think Internet should be seen as a right, but I have sympathies for > the views of the second group above, because I can understand why they > think as they do. They see people around them deprived of such basic > things that to them it looks almost a bit insensitive to speak of the > Internet as a right. However, they have perhaps not given much deep > thought to how the Internet is fundamentally and structurally > transforming social relationship, in a manner that impacts all, whether > on the Internet or not. However, as I said, I do sympathise with this > group of people, and the reason why they are averse to talking about a > right to the internet. I see myself in both groups (although I don't talk much about the transformative power of the Internet IMO) and I have been softening a bit lately about the whole Internet as a human right thingy. Mainly, my opposition to the notion is that I fear creeping intergovernmentalism. We see multiple examples of governments trying to control various aspects of the Internet, and frankly I don't particularly appreciate it. If we had a UN Summit (again) to declare Internet a Human Right, I fear such a Summit would go much further towards the IBSA model than would be useful. In addition, I have always felt that Internet comes under the rubric of communication, which we already have as a HR. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jan 17 08:12:22 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:12:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> Hi, You make a good argument. Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the page is the most important part of this. avri On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and find out what SOPA means to them. > - - - > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling about it. > > In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. > And that i very much support. > > But who is going to miss them during the strike? > > a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or > > b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. > > As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object either way. > > avri > - - - > > On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Donny Shaw > > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > > To: > > > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > > > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > > > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > > > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > > > > > > Thank You! > > > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Tue Jan 17 08:14:00 2012 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:14:00 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <27079434.133675.1326708072367.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> <4F13F9C2.1050206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <01db01ccd519$e1060ab0$a3122010$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> Wikipedia already made it in the German news: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/stop-online-piracy-act-wikipedia-schaltet-aus-protest-englischsprachige-seite-ab-11610376.html And http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout Regards, Lorena Jaume-Palasí ___________________________________________ Reseach Associate Department of Political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer) Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Sciences Ludwig Maximilians University Munich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von e-cpsr Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 02:51 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Izumi AIZU Betreff: Re: [governance] Should the IGC website go on strike against censorship on Jan 18? [URGENT] On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 17:26, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear all, many thanks for all good comments and suggestions so far. We > like to hear a little more before closing this. Well, since you asked. I agree that the site should join the shutdown too. But, i agree with Parminder, the US has entirely too much influence on what happens on the 'net. I believe we should begin to think about how to run potentially censored sites, even if local governments would acquiesce to Record Companies (in this case), shutting down differing points of view. e ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jan 17 08:14:37 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:14:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> Message-ID: Agree Adam On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > You make a good argument. > Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the page is the most important part of this. > > avri > > On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and find out what SOPA means to them. >> - - - >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling about it. >> >> In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. >> And that i very much support. >> >> But who is going to miss them during the strike? >> >> a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or >> >> b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. >> >> As for Michael's question related to the IGC  site, I would not object either way. >> >> avri >> - - - >> >> On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Donny Shaw >> > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >> > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >> > To: >> > >> > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. >> > >> > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. >> > >> > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. >> > >> > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: >> > >> > >> > Thank You! >> > >> > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:23:35 2012 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:23:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> Message-ID: Yes, yes and yes Aaron On 1/17/12, Adam Peake wrote: > Agree > > Adam > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> You make a good argument. >> Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the >> page is the most important part of this. >> >> avri >> >> On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can >>> create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are >>> barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the >>> strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. >>> Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully >>> try and find out what SOPA means to them. >>> - - - >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed >>> feeling about it. >>> >>> In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if >>> the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. >>> And that i very much support. >>> >>> But who is going to miss them during the strike? >>> >>> a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how >>> distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and >>> beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or >>> >>> b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will >>> breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel >>> inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. >>> >>> As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object >>> either way. >>> >>> avri >>> - - - >>> >>> On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > From: Donny Shaw >>> > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >>> > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >>> > To: >>> > >>> > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. >>> > Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet >>> > censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. >>> > >>> > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, >>> > Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging >>> > platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they >>> > need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. >>> > >>> > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. >>> > >>> > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: >>> > >>> > >>> > Thank You! >>> > >>> > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to The President Cellphone +231 73 49 71 27 P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Tue Jan 17 08:26:11 2012 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:26:11 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> Message-ID: <01e601ccd51b$943dc090$bcb941b0$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> +1 Lorena Jaume-Palasí ___________________________________________ Reseach Associate Department of Political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer) Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Sciences Ludwig Maximilians University Munich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 14:15 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? Agree Adam On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > You make a good argument. > Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the page is the most important part of this. > > avri > > On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and find out what SOPA means to them. >> - - - >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling about it. >> >> In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. >> And that i very much support. >> >> But who is going to miss them during the strike? >> >> a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or >> >> b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. >> >> As for Michael's question related to the IGC  site, I would not object either way. >> >> avri >> - - - >> >> On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Donny Shaw >> > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM >> > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! >> > To: >> > >> > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. >> > >> > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. >> > >> > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. >> > >> > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: >> > >> > >> > Thank You! >> > >> > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:27:57 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:27:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:59 AM, McTim wrote: > If we had a UN Summit (again) to declare > Internet a Human Right, I fear such a Summit would go much further > towards the IBSA model than would be useful. In addition, I have > always felt that Internet comes under the rubric of communication, > which we already have as a HR. > *Just as we haven't needed a "Summit" to declare a specific "right of property" in cyberspace, we do not require a "Summit" to find or declare human rights of speech/communication and association, etc., as applied in cyberspace. * Such declarations of rights on the Internet in a hypothetical Summit could be *useful for clarity's sake*, just like the Bill of Rights in the USA as the first ten amendments to the US Constitution was useful because it added some clarity to the pre-existing rights of the people (but, pointedly, DID NOT create those rights, as the 9th and 10th amendments with their reservations of other rights in the people and the States, makes clear). However, (*as you point out*) a hypothetical new Summit on Internet rights could also result in a *de facto* retrenchment / reduction in rights, when (and if) the actual language approved carves out exceptions that wouldn't exist through the application of pre-existing but more general human rights to the new context of the Internet. Yet the very fact that you mention this concern clearly implies what is indeed the case: *Human rights already exist on the Internet*, but they are being contested by Vint Cerf/Google and various others, and thus are subject to continuous expansion, contraction and revision, fluctuating with public awareness of the issues and court rulings, etc. Question: Why would *humans* understand and support *property rights* on the Internet, but not understand or support *human* *rights* on the Internet? Answer: Businesses *pay* humans to advocate for business property rights, and to steer clear of advocating for human rights on the Internet except where absolutely necessary or supportive of the business' bottom line. Take away the voices (in our imagination) of those on the payroll of various businesses, and there would be every bit, if not more, acceptance of human rights on the Internet as there presently is for property rights on the Internet. And yet, conceptualizing property rights on the internet has definite conceptual difficulties too, including but not limited to problems associated with intangible property, extraterritorial application of (US, often) law, and others. These difficulties do not lead business evangelists of the Internet to despair, or to give up on the project of a radical expansion of property rights into cyberspace. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:30:12 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:30:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <0CA5AAE3-725B-42AE-9B67-BD3FF83C74AF@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 1/17/12, Paul Lehto wrote: > > But, this oversimplification definitely works for the present purpose of > facilitating the business expansion of entities such as Google by > protecting their property rights and business expectations against any > "infringement" by human rights claims regarding the Internet. IMO, having Internet declared a Human Right by the UN would ONLY be good for Google's business prospects. In fact it would be GREAT for them. More eyeballs for ads means more profits for them...it's a pretty simple thing to grok. > Unfortunately, as I see it, Vinton Cerf is leveraging and thus bastardizing > his status as a "Founding Father" of the Internet in service to Google's > bid to dominate future cyberspace as its own fiefdom and Lordly domain. oh ffs, seriously? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:33:50 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:33:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello :-) I've been following this discussion with fascination and amazement. When I was a little girl Saturday teatime was made glorious by the delicious frisson of terror produced by Dr Who and the Daleks. For the uninitiated a Dalek was a sort of upsidedown dustbin or ur-R2D2, with a nose-like arm sticking out of the front and a metallic voice which said 'I-am-a-Dalek-you-will-obey' Of course Dr Who didn't, and by association we didn't either, but it was fun. So is Google the Dalek of the 21st century? And have we lost our ability to disobey? Perhaps you don't know the Google game? I invented it to demonstrate to somebody that Google, like Big Brother, is in fact - watching you! I sent myself a message mentioning my intention to plant mistletoe in the garden. Google responded, instantly and obediently, with an advertisement for exotic seeds from somewhere in Louisiana. You should try it, it's quite entertaining. What Vint Cerf wrote in his article follows close upon what he said at several workshops at the IGF in Nairobi. Admittedly for me this all happened at an unholy hour of the morning (I was participating remotely) but I think I understood. And no one seemed to mind then. For me rights seem to be primarily about demand. As an analogy I would propose the 'rights of way' in England. If you don't use them you lose them. And to say that the Internet is not a human right is not the same thing as saying one has no right to the Internet. So perhaps capacity building needs to place plenty of emphasis on thinking for oneself, on resilience against 'social engineering'. Deirdre On 17 January 2012 04:16, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Paul, > > you made such an intellectual somersault from "access to the net as human > right" to "Google wants to tell them what they should be doing next" - I > have a hard time following. > > Google's vision is "to organize information on the net and make it > accessible". It does it for free, hoping to satisfice the individual who > searches, the advertiser, and its shareholders. > > There is nothing in this vision about controlling the access - just > reshuffling the net information in way Google thinks is suitable to you. > Their vision is a virtual avatar of "all the news fit to print" that > graces the title side of the NYT. > > Google is the net version of the free-grab junk papers you get for free at > railway and bus stations. > These junk papers are destroying the staid daylies, by satisficing most > people's demand for news. The content is "tits and bits" > soudbites and soundtrites. 90% of social networking is gossip. "Noise" > rather than information. > > Is there a "human right to the NYT"? I doubt it. > Does Google's approach change society? > You bet. > What can we do about it? > Certainly not by elitistically clamoring "human rights". > > In fact, it is a case of "just deserts" > ever since Eve and Adam bit into the apple > the news were "elite-driven" > kings, battles, and big rites. > Now the masses, through their earning power and day-to-day decisions > decide also for themselves what's "fit to be on top of a google search". > you better get used to it. > > The political problem is "natural monopoly" > as more people google > google becomes the only game in town. > > Just as Windows DOS has exterminates alternatives > probably with methods akin to those of JDRockefeller as he built up > Standard Oil > > a "natural monopoly" might allow "natural populism" to emerge > as people graze of newsbits, rather than spend energy on thinking. > > So what else is new? > Most of our brain activities are unconscious, to save energy needed to > decide... > the world (not you and me maybe) may even think it's an improvement > > Aldo > > > > > > > > > On 17 January 2012 04:51, Paul Lehto wrote: > > >> >> It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any >> other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the >> "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But >> Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., >> strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to >> access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. >> Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights >> such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the >> Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived >> of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" >> take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right >> to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in >> either print or electronic form? >> >> I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the same >> time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's >> business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are >> considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to >> the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine >> business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android >> away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative >> market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone >> users: >> >> >> >> "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their >>> questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell them what they >>> should be doing next."* >>> >>> Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has >>> collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care >>> about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS >>> capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one >>> foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] >>> >>> >>> Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably >> clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they >> want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly >> targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads >> ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical >> vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. >> >> If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of >> Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") >> then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and >> Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against >> Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any such >> "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference with >> Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks >> we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based on the >> voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. >> >> You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do >> our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than >> we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from >> Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. >> >> Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer to >> tell Google *where to go*, than to have Google tell them what to do. >> >> But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that is >> choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that it >> can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer accessible >> to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen by Google >> is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. This is not >> too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a >> "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably personalized >> and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps (and this is >> only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we are committed >> to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will have to wade >> past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, >> and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to provide >> them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." >> >> >> >> Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in >> conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. >> Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he >> indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this >> particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the >> Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision >> and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. >> >> Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in >> which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't >> really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one >> day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be >> spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic >> exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to >> the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or >> operating system) one is born on or born into. >> >> >> The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice of >> being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords do >> not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be >> doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or >> the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. >> Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and >> abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4026 (cell) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 08:43:03 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:43:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello and thanks, Ginger, for the introduction. The concept of "access to internet as human right" is being used a bit too loosely for my comfort: The UNDHR has mothered two Conventions: · UNICCPR of 1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and · UNICESCR, also of 1966: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . While the first obligates the signatories "respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction" the rights in that Convention, the second only demands “best efforts”: *“Article 2* of the Covenant imposes a duty on all parties to *take steps... to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures*. This is known as the principle of "progressive realisation". It acknowledges that some of the rights (for example, the right to health) may be difficult in practice to achieve in a short period of time, and that states may be subject to resource constraints, but requires them to act as best they can within their means.”[1] This is what I meant by “Human Rights” are more akin to “aspirations” than enforceable rights. Certainly UNICECSR is neither self-executing in a country, nor judiciable. The reason is materiality: as long as the law of scarcity is not repealed, one needs to set priorities in fulfilling these aspirations. So one core issue of any discussion on human rights is not whether the list is exhaustive – it will never be and whether this or that further right better be included; what is crucial is the ordering of priorities among all these rights. Once these rights fall below the “line of scarcity”, any discussion on them would be fatuous. But one does not do policy by ranking alone. The real issue is one of trade-offs: how much food vs. how much health or education; how much in the North and how much in the South; and so on. As Avishai MARGALIT points out – no one likes to talk “compromises”[2]. Yet that’s the only real game in town, and any abstract discussion – gutted of the material context – is whistling in the wind. The last famine in India was Bengal, 1942. Democracies can’t afford famines, and deal with them as a matter of priority. Mao was able to hide 30 million dead during the Great Leap Forward. As A. K. SEN points out, life expectancy in India and China was about equal in 1948. Today China ranks 80 in the list of nations, and its citizens expect to live 73 years. India has a rank of 139, with an expectancy of 64.4. North Korea weighs in 67.3[3]. A matter of priorities, which translates as about 8 million Indians dying prematurely every year. Different priorities, different compromises, and different outcomes. Who are we to judge, and overload the cart with “human rights” which, at best are a distraction, and most likely will dilute priorities? Now, and pragmatically: should internet access be a priority? I’d say yes, and not for political reasons, but because internet is such a useful day to day tool. People in India are voting with their pocket books when they buy 7 million mobile phones each month. Sure they use if for gossip, but farmers learn where best to sell their crop. Internet could provide all sorts of services to the villages, from health advice in emergencies, education for children (the PC in the wall), to accounts for the *panchayat*. There is no limit to the ways internet could transform daily life, particularly in the rural areas. This is why, in genocide-scarred Rwanda, providing every child with a PC is a priority. Even a politically eunuch internet is transformative of the material world. Of course internet should be both easily accessible (distribution + cost) and protected from political interference (we’ll have to deal with its “viral” aspects though). But, if push comes to shove, a rice bowl half full for most, thanks to internet, might just be satisficing – in the short run. ------------------------------ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights [2] Avishai MARGALIT (2009): *On compromises and rotten compromises*. Princeton University Press. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy On 17 January 2012 14:33, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Hello :-) > I've been following this discussion with fascination and amazement. > > When I was a little girl Saturday teatime was made glorious by the > delicious frisson of terror produced by Dr Who and the Daleks. For the > uninitiated a Dalek was a sort of upsidedown dustbin or ur-R2D2, with a > nose-like arm sticking out of the front and a metallic voice which said > 'I-am-a-Dalek-you-will-obey' Of course Dr Who didn't, and by association we > didn't either, but it was fun. > > So is Google the Dalek of the 21st century? And have we lost our ability > to disobey? > > Perhaps you don't know the Google game? I invented it to demonstrate to > somebody that Google, like Big Brother, is in fact - watching you! I sent > myself a message mentioning my intention to plant mistletoe in the garden. > Google responded, instantly and obediently, with an advertisement for > exotic seeds from somewhere in Louisiana. You should try it, it's quite > entertaining. > > What Vint Cerf wrote in his article follows close upon what he said at > several workshops at the IGF in Nairobi. Admittedly for me this all > happened at an unholy hour of the morning (I was participating remotely) > but I think I understood. And no one seemed to mind then. > > For me rights seem to be primarily about demand. As an analogy I would > propose the 'rights of way' in England. If you don't use them you lose > them. And to say that the Internet is not a human right is not the same > thing as saying one has no right to the Internet. > > So perhaps capacity building needs to place plenty of emphasis on thinking > for oneself, on resilience against 'social engineering'. > > Deirdre > > > On 17 January 2012 04:16, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> you made such an intellectual somersault from "access to the net as human >> right" to "Google wants to tell them what they should be doing next" - I >> have a hard time following. >> >> Google's vision is "to organize information on the net and make it >> accessible". It does it for free, hoping to satisfice the individual who >> searches, the advertiser, and its shareholders. >> >> There is nothing in this vision about controlling the access - just >> reshuffling the net information in way Google thinks is suitable to you. >> Their vision is a virtual avatar of "all the news fit to print" that >> graces the title side of the NYT. >> >> Google is the net version of the free-grab junk papers you get for free >> at railway and bus stations. >> These junk papers are destroying the staid daylies, by satisficing most >> people's demand for news. The content is "tits and bits" >> soudbites and soundtrites. 90% of social networking is gossip. "Noise" >> rather than information. >> >> Is there a "human right to the NYT"? I doubt it. >> Does Google's approach change society? >> You bet. >> What can we do about it? >> Certainly not by elitistically clamoring "human rights". >> >> In fact, it is a case of "just deserts" >> ever since Eve and Adam bit into the apple >> the news were "elite-driven" >> kings, battles, and big rites. >> Now the masses, through their earning power and day-to-day decisions >> decide also for themselves what's "fit to be on top of a google search". >> you better get used to it. >> >> The political problem is "natural monopoly" >> as more people google >> google becomes the only game in town. >> >> Just as Windows DOS has exterminates alternatives >> probably with methods akin to those of JDRockefeller as he built up >> Standard Oil >> >> a "natural monopoly" might allow "natural populism" to emerge >> as people graze of newsbits, rather than spend energy on thinking. >> >> So what else is new? >> Most of our brain activities are unconscious, to save energy needed to >> decide... >> the world (not you and me maybe) may even think it's an improvement >> >> Aldo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17 January 2012 04:51, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> >>> >>> It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any >>> other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the >>> "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But >>> Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., >>> strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to >>> access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. >>> Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights >>> such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the >>> Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived >>> of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" >>> take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right >>> to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in >>> either print or electronic form? >>> >>> I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the >>> same time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's >>> business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are >>> considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to >>> the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine >>> business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android >>> away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative >>> market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone >>> users: >>> >>> >>> >>> "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their >>>> questions," he elaborates. "*They want Google to tell them what they >>>> should be doing next."* >>>> >>>> Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google >>>> has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you >>>> care about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS >>>> capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one >>>> foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] >>>> >>>> >>>> Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably >>> clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they >>> want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly >>> targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads >>> ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical >>> vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. >>> >>> If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of >>> Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") >>> then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and >>> Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against >>> Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: *Any >>> such "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference >>> with Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it >>> thinks we want from the Internet*, in Google's sole discretion, based >>> on the voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. >>> >>> You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do >>> our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than >>> we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from >>> Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. >>> >>> Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer >>> to tell Google *where to go*, than to have Google tell them what to do. >>> >>> But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that >>> is choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that >>> it can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer >>> accessible to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen >>> by Google is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. >>> This is not too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. >>> Such a "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably >>> personalized and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps >>> (and this is only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we >>> are committed to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will >>> have to wade past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be >>> doing next, and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google >>> to provide them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." >>> >>> >>> >>> Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in >>> conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. >>> Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he >>> indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this >>> particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the >>> Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision >>> and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. >>> >>> Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in >>> which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't >>> really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one >>> day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be >>> spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic >>> exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to >>> the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or >>> operating system) one is born on or born into. >>> >>> >>> The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice >>> of being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords >>> do not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be >>> doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or >>> the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. >>> Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and >>> abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >>> P.O. Box 1 >>> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >>> lehto.paul at gmail.com >>> 906-204-4026 (cell) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 > -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 08:45:12 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:45:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <0CA5AAE3-725B-42AE-9B67-BD3FF83C74AF@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:30 AM, McTim wrote: > > Unfortunately, as I see it, Vinton Cerf is leveraging and thus > bastardizing > > his status as a "Founding Father" of the Internet in service to Google's > > bid to dominate future cyberspace as its own fiefdom and Lordly domain. > > oh ffs, seriously? > > > That was precisely my reaction on reading Vint Cerf's New York Times op-ed on January 4, 2012. "Oh, FFS, seriously???" (additional emphatic punctuation added) For any who don't know that abbreviation (and I only learned it not too long ago, innocent that I am) FFS stands for an emphatic exclamation of disbelief using a meaningless intensive (aka a swear word) as its middle word, which meaningless intensive is otherwise known in some circles as the F-Bomb. McTim, I seriously do realize the sense in which my language above can, especially out of context, seem over the top. Yet, as you know, the "founding father" of the Internet name and such are all long-standing pre-existing rhetoric adopted by Mr. Cerf and his fans. It is of course up to each person to determine if they wish to allow me the poetic license to extend the monikers to "Lordly domain", but I can "see it": Google surveys its operating system "Creation" for internet existence, and finds that it to be Good, All Good. Google preaches that we may all live more abundantly through the Words of Google. It sends forth a chief evangelist named Vint Cerf, who is called a Father or Founding Father of the Internet. etc etc etc Now that Google is expressly preaching that they believe we all want Google to "tell us what to do next" it is not too much of a stretch, IMO, to go from "evangelist" of the Internet to Lords of the Internet. (If you're still saying "Oh, FFS" then please apportion the blame for over the top rhetoric between Google and myself as you deem fair and just, and I'll accept that allocation. ;) ) -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Jan 17 09:24:33 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:24:33 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, we all agree that the technical community and the human rights community should talk to each other more to make sure that technical solutions are human rights sensitive and that solutions developed by human rights lawyers answer effectively to emerging technological challenges. But is also important that we agree on some human rights basics, which seem to be questioned by some of the more recent emails. So no, human rights are not about „demand“. Human rights inhere each human beings, even if they do not demand them. And no, human rights are not “more akin to ‘aspirations’ than enforceable rights”. Human rights are enforceable rights. States need to respect, protect and implement human rights. That violations of human rights occur and that some human rights can only be implemented progressively is not an argument for the lack of their binding character but only evidence of the imperfect nature of the world. The argument that that “[c]ertainly [the Social Covenant] is neither self-executing in a country, nor judiciable” goes against the UDHR and most human rights scholarship. Indeed, some provisions of the Social Covenant are self-executing (applicable by courts without further legislative or executive involvement) and all are (to a certain degree) judiciable. Why? First, let us consider Art 8 UDHR. It explicitly states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. There is nothing in the language suggesting that only political rights are covered and social, economic and cultural rights should be non-justiciable. Further arguments (which merit extensive citation) are provided by the Social Rights Committee overseeing the implementation of the Social Covenant in its General Comment No. 9 of 1998 (E/C.12/1998/24). With regard du justiciability the Committee writes: “10.In relation to civil and political rights, it is generally taken for granted that judicial remedies for violations are essential. Regrettably, the contrary assumption is too often made in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. This discrepancy is not warranted either by the nature of the rights or by the relevant Covenant provisions. The Committee has already made clear that it considers many of the provisions in the Covenant to be capable of immediate implementation. Thus, in General Comment No. 3 (1990) it cited, by way of example, articles 3; 7, paragraph (a) (i); 8; 10, paragraph 3; 13, paragraph 2 (a); 13, paragraph 3; 13, paragraph 4; and 15, paragraph 3. It is important in this regard to distinguish between justiciability (which refers to those matters which are appropriately resolved by the courts) and norms which are self-executing (capable of being applied by courts without further elaboration). While the general approach of each legal system needs to be taken into account, there is no Covenant right which could not, in the great majority of systems, be considered to possess at least some significant justiciable dimensions. It is sometimes suggested that matters involving the allocation of resources should be left to the political authorities rather than the courts. While the respective competences of the various branches of government must be respected, it is appropriate to acknowledge that courts are generally already involved in a considerable range of matters which have important resource implications. The adoption of a rigid classification of economic, social and cultural rights which puts them, by definition, beyond the reach of the courts would thus be arbitrary and incompatible with the principle that the two sets of human rights are indivisible and interdependent. It would also drastically curtail the capacity of the courts to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society.” With regard to the self-executing character of the Covenant it opines: “11.The Covenant does not negate the possibility that the rights it contains may be considered self-executing in systems where that option is provided for. Indeed, when it was being drafted, attempts to include a specific provision in the Covenant to the effect that it be considered "non-self-executing" were strongly rejected. In most States, the determination of whether or not a treaty provision is self-executing will be a matter for the courts, not the executive or the legislature. In order to perform that function effectively, the relevant courts and tribunals must be made aware of the nature and implications of the Covenant and of the important role of judicial remedies in its implementation. Thus, for example, when Governments are involved in court proceedings, they should promote interpretations of domestic laws which give effect to their Covenant obligations. Similarly, judicial training should take full account of the justiciability of the Covenant. It is especially important to avoid any a priori assumption that the norms should be considered to be non-self-executing. In fact, many of them are stated in terms which are at least as clear and specific as those in other human rights treaties, the provisions of which are regularly deemed by courts to be self-executing.” Kind regards Matthias Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Aldo Matteucci Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Jänner 2012 14:43 An: Deirdre Williams Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jovan KURBALJA Betreff: Re: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? Hello and thanks, Ginger, for the introduction. The concept of "access to internet as human right" is being used a bit too loosely for my comfort: The UNDHR has mothered two Conventions: • UNICCPR of 1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and • UNICESCR, also of 1966: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While the first obligates the signatories "respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction" the rights in that Convention, the second only demands “best efforts”: “Article 2 of the Covenant imposes a duty on all parties to take steps... to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. This is known as the principle of "progressive realisation". It acknowledges that some of the rights (for example, the right to health) may be difficult in practice to achieve in a short period of time, and that states may be subject to resource constraints, but requires them to act as best they can within their means.”[1] This is what I meant by “Human Rights” are more akin to “aspirations” than enforceable rights. Certainly UNICECSR is neither self-executing in a country, nor judiciable. The reason is materiality: as long as the law of scarcity is not repealed, one needs to set priorities in fulfilling these aspirations. So one core issue of any discussion on human rights is not whether the list is exhaustive – it will never be and whether this or that further right better be included; what is crucial is the ordering of priorities among all these rights. Once these rights fall below the “line of scarcity”, any discussion on them would be fatuous. But one does not do policy by ranking alone. The real issue is one of trade-offs: how much food vs. how much health or education; how much in the North and how much in the South; and so on. As Avishai MARGALIT points out – no one likes to talk “compromises”[2]. Yet that’s the only real game in town, and any abstract discussion – gutted of the material context – is whistling in the wind. The last famine in India was Bengal, 1942. Democracies can’t afford famines, and deal with them as a matter of priority. Mao was able to hide 30 million dead during the Great Leap Forward. As A. K. SEN points out, life expectancy in India and China was about equal in 1948. Today China ranks 80 in the list of nations, and its citizens expect to live 73 years. India has a rank of 139, with an expectancy of 64.4. North Korea weighs in 67.3[3]. A matter of priorities, which translates as about 8 million Indians dying prematurely every year. Different priorities, different compromises, and different outcomes. Who are we to judge, and overload the cart with “human rights” which, at best are a distraction, and most likely will dilute priorities? Now, and pragmatically: should internet access be a priority? I’d say yes, and not for political reasons, but because internet is such a useful day to day tool. People in India are voting with their pocket books when they buy 7 million mobile phones each month. Sure they use if for gossip, but farmers learn where best to sell their crop. Internet could provide all sorts of services to the villages, from health advice in emergencies, education for children (the PC in the wall), to accounts for the panchayat. There is no limit to the ways internet could transform daily life, particularly in the rural areas. This is why, in genocide-scarred Rwanda, providing every child with a PC is a priority. Even a politically eunuch internet is transformative of the material world. Of course internet should be both easily accessible (distribution + cost) and protected from political interference (we’ll have to deal with its “viral” aspects though). But, if push comes to shove, a rice bowl half full for most, thanks to internet, might just be satisficing – in the short run. ________________________________ [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights [2] Avishai MARGALIT (2009): On compromises and rotten compromises. Princeton University Press. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy On 17 January 2012 14:33, Deirdre Williams > wrote: Hello :-) I've been following this discussion with fascination and amazement. When I was a little girl Saturday teatime was made glorious by the delicious frisson of terror produced by Dr Who and the Daleks. For the uninitiated a Dalek was a sort of upsidedown dustbin or ur-R2D2, with a nose-like arm sticking out of the front and a metallic voice which said 'I-am-a-Dalek-you-will-obey' Of course Dr Who didn't, and by association we didn't either, but it was fun. So is Google the Dalek of the 21st century? And have we lost our ability to disobey? Perhaps you don't know the Google game? I invented it to demonstrate to somebody that Google, like Big Brother, is in fact - watching you! I sent myself a message mentioning my intention to plant mistletoe in the garden. Google responded, instantly and obediently, with an advertisement for exotic seeds from somewhere in Louisiana. You should try it, it's quite entertaining. What Vint Cerf wrote in his article follows close upon what he said at several workshops at the IGF in Nairobi. Admittedly for me this all happened at an unholy hour of the morning (I was participating remotely) but I think I understood. And no one seemed to mind then. For me rights seem to be primarily about demand. As an analogy I would propose the 'rights of way' in England. If you don't use them you lose them. And to say that the Internet is not a human right is not the same thing as saying one has no right to the Internet. So perhaps capacity building needs to place plenty of emphasis on thinking for oneself, on resilience against 'social engineering'. Deirdre On 17 January 2012 04:16, Aldo Matteucci > wrote: Paul, you made such an intellectual somersault from "access to the net as human right" to "Google wants to tell them what they should be doing next" - I have a hard time following. Google's vision is "to organize information on the net and make it accessible". It does it for free, hoping to satisfice the individual who searches, the advertiser, and its shareholders. There is nothing in this vision about controlling the access - just reshuffling the net information in way Google thinks is suitable to you. Their vision is a virtual avatar of "all the news fit to print" that graces the title side of the NYT. Google is the net version of the free-grab junk papers you get for free at railway and bus stations. These junk papers are destroying the staid daylies, by satisficing most people's demand for news. The content is "tits and bits" soudbites and soundtrites. 90% of social networking is gossip. "Noise" rather than information. Is there a "human right to the NYT"? I doubt it. Does Google's approach change society? You bet. What can we do about it? Certainly not by elitistically clamoring "human rights". In fact, it is a case of "just deserts" ever since Eve and Adam bit into the apple the news were "elite-driven" kings, battles, and big rites. Now the masses, through their earning power and day-to-day decisions decide also for themselves what's "fit to be on top of a google search". you better get used to it. The political problem is "natural monopoly" as more people google google becomes the only game in town. Just as Windows DOS has exterminates alternatives probably with methods akin to those of JDRockefeller as he built up Standard Oil a "natural monopoly" might allow "natural populism" to emerge as people graze of newsbits, rather than spend energy on thinking. So what else is new? Most of our brain activities are unconscious, to save energy needed to decide... the world (not you and me maybe) may even think it's an improvement Aldo On 17 January 2012 04:51, Paul Lehto > wrote: It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. But Vinton G. Cerf, official "chief Internet evangelist" for Google, Inc., strangely argued an analogous proposition: That people have "no right to access the Internet" Mr. Cerf is paid to evangelise for by Google, Inc. Calling the Internet a mere tool or technology that enables "real" rights such as free speech, Mr. Cerf apparently considers anyone denied the Internet by arbitrary government action, for example, to have been deprived of nothing they have a right to access. Would a religious "evangelist" take the same attitude about accessing the Bible, and think that the right to freedom of religion did NOT encompass a right to access the Bible in either print or electronic form? I find Mr. Cerf's argument to be, frankly, nonsensical. At the same time, I can readily understand it as a coherent statement of Google's business position on the future of the Internet when Cerf's statements are considered side by side with Google CEO Eric Schmidt's famous statements to the Wall Street Journal in 2010 comparing Google's classic search engine business with its newer Android-based strategy, focused on giving Android away to cell phone companies for free, because of the extremely lucrative market thus made available to Google to sell targeted ads to cell phone users: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next." Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." [And, thanks to Android GPS capabilities, they know where you are, within a tolerance of about one foot, if you carry an Android "smart"phone.] Google's business vision for the future of the Internet is reasonably clear: They already have extremely detailed data on each user, and they want to use all of that data to push ads in front of users allegedly targeted to what Google "already knows" they want, and sell many "heads ups" to local restaurants and other "opportunities" in the physical vicinity of wherever the Android user may happen to be. If the above idea is even close to being correct (and it makes sense of Schmidt's bold claim that we "want Google to tell [us] what [to do] next") then we can understand why Google, via their official public face and Internet evangelist Vinton G. Cerf, would try to evangelize against Internet access rights in the January 4, 2012 New York Times: Any such "right to access" the Internet is clearly a potential interference with Google's business plan to reconfigure the Internet based on what it thinks we want from the Internet, in Google's sole discretion, based on the voluminous data Google routinely collects on users. You and I may prefer to make our own discoveries on the Internet, and do our own searches. But Google, quite literally, thinks it knows better than we do, and even goes so far as to claim that it's what we really want from Google, in the end: for Google to tell us all what to do. Many people object to Google's idea with fervor, and would much prefer to tell Google where to go, than to have Google tell them what to do. But imagine an aggressive, ad-selling, data-shaping future google that is choosing so much data for us and putting it in front of our faces that it can be said that the "Internet" as we now know it is no longer accessible to us, only an edited and targeted shadow of the Internet chosen by Google is accessible to us, as a practical matter, on our devices. This is not too hard to imagine at all, since most of it is already here. Such a "personalized" Internet is but a shadow, albeit an arguably personalized and targeted shadow, of the Internet we know today. Perhaps (and this is only a maybe) we could still get to the "full Internet" if we are committed to doing so and know what we are doing, but to do so we will have to wade past Google's paternalistic suggestions for what we should be doing next, and past Google's conclusion that people no longer want "Google to provide them with information, they want google to tell them what to do." Clearly, a right to access the Internet is in tension with, if not in conflict with, Google's business vision for the future of the Internet. Mr. Cerf's many notable achievements related to the Internet aside, he indisputably owes a duty of loyalty to his employer, Google, and in this particular context, Mr. Cerf is not speaking as a true evangelist for the Internet, he is speaking out of loyalty to the forthcoming business vision and profitability of his employer, Google Inc. Perhaps Google's increasingly paternalistic vision of Internet users, in which they decide for us what we should do next, and presume that we don't really want Google to simply provide information at our choosing, will one day give new meaning to the phrase Cerfing the Net, which perhaps will be spelled Serfing the Net, in honor of Vinton G. Cerf's feudalistic exposition on their new internet reality in which one's rights of access to the Internet are predetermined, as in feudal days, by the land (or operating system) one is born on or born into. The masters of the universe at Google are indeed on the very precipice of being the Lords of the Internet, not evangelists of the Internet. Lords do not simply answer searching questions, Lords tell us what we should be doing next. Evangelists hope and pray that ALL will access the Internet or the Bible, but by saying there is no right of access to the Internet, Mr. Serf is made himself and fellow executives at Google our Lords, and abandoned his post as Chief evangelist of the Internet, at Google. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 09:25:37 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:25:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > Question: Why would humans understand and support property rights on the Internet, but not understand or support human rights on the Internet? > > Answer: Businesses pay humans to advocate for business property rights, and to steer clear of advocating for human rights on the Internet except where absolutely necessary or supportive of the business' bottom line. Take away the voices (in our imagination) of those on the payroll of various businesses, and there would be every bit, if not more, acceptance of human rights on the Internet as there presently is for property rights on the Internet. I am still confused by all this. Perhaps it is some "western" type of thinking, but it just does not make sense to me. The same thing as when you argued about corporations being evil. Property rights is one of the human rights. How could property rights be against other human rights? If it is a matter of balance, or rather a need for humans to exist, then one can say for sure, that humans can exist without Internet. They can also exist without property. They can for some time to survive even without food, or water. I believe humans will survive least without air to breathe… My "fear" of declaring "access to Internet" is centered towards the abuse we see every day with regards to "human rights". Many are killed daily, in the name of "human rights". Countries are being invaded and drawn to war in the name of "human rights"…. to name few. Of course, everyone has the right to access the Internet. Call it human right or not.. it is just a choice of wording. In another language, in another culture it might mean something else. Even in the same language/culture it might mean something else with a different Government. We have seen this all the time. But in order to access the Internet, it has to be accessible to everyone. That means less regulation. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jan 17 09:42:14 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:42:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > And no, human rights are not “more akin to ‘aspirations’ than enforceable rights”. Human rights are enforceable rights. States need to respect, protect and implement human rights. That violations of human rights occur and that some human rights can only be implemented progressively is not an argument for the lack of their binding character but only evidence of the imperfect nature of the world. The problem is, that if one thing is good for one person it may be damaging for another. Let's go back to the "food" (because most people seems to understand it) example: A very hungry man walks by an beautiful garden full of fruit trees, with ripe fruits. The hungry man decides to take the risk, break in an feed himself with fruits. Is it it "human right" to have access to food? Is this right enforceable? Depending on many circumstances, there might be different outcomes from this person "enforcing" their human right to food (just few incomplete examples): - nobody might notice, or care. - that person gets shoot on the sport. then depending on other circumstances, possible are = the society declares that person thief and mocks his name; = the society declares the one who shot them murderer and kills them too or puts them to jail; = nobody notices or cares; - the owner invites the hungry person to more food "come on, I have better things to eat than those fruits" - things are investigated and the owner gets fined for not locking their garden better. Violation of human rights happen all the time. There is no other way for violations of human rights to stop, except all humans being dead. Everything in this area is a matter of compromise. The compromise, however depends on the world view each community has and varies wildly by culture. Unfortunately, Internet is global and respects no bothers. Nor it can be made to respect borders, as many are trying. Internet is really opening the human culture to a new level of interaction and new level of exercising "human rights". Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jan 17 09:56:51 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:56:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> References: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4F158C33.9080103@cafonso.ca> Wow, this exegesis is getting better and better... I wonder where is it leading -- to a new religious fringe? :) []s fraternos --c.a. On 01/17/2012 12:42 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> And no, human rights are not “more akin to ‘aspirations’ than enforceable rights”. Human rights are enforceable rights. States need to respect, protect and implement human rights. That violations of human rights occur and that some human rights can only be implemented progressively is not an argument for the lack of their binding character but only evidence of the imperfect nature of the world. > > The problem is, that if one thing is good for one person it may be damaging for another. > > Let's go back to the "food" (because most people seems to understand it) example: > > A very hungry man walks by an beautiful garden full of fruit trees, with ripe fruits. The hungry man decides to take the risk, break in an feed himself with fruits. > > Is it it "human right" to have access to food? > > Is this right enforceable? > > Depending on many circumstances, there might be different outcomes from this person "enforcing" their human right to food (just few incomplete examples): > > - nobody might notice, or care. > - that person gets shoot on the sport. then depending on other circumstances, possible are > = the society declares that person thief and mocks his name; > = the society declares the one who shot them murderer and kills them too or puts them to jail; > = nobody notices or cares; > - the owner invites the hungry person to more food "come on, I have better things to eat than those fruits" > - things are investigated and the owner gets fined for not locking their garden better. > > Violation of human rights happen all the time. There is no other way for violations of human rights to stop, except all humans being dead. > > Everything in this area is a matter of compromise. The compromise, however depends on the world view each community has and varies wildly by culture. > > Unfortunately, Internet is global and respects no bothers. Nor it can be made to respect borders, as many are trying. > Internet is really opening the human culture to a new level of interaction and new level of exercising "human rights". > > Daniel > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 10:00:03 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:00:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> References: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> Message-ID: 2012/1/17 Daniel Kalchev > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( > matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > > And no, human rights are not “more akin to ‘aspirations’ than enforceable > rights”. Human rights are enforceable rights. States need to respect, > protect and implement human rights. That violations of human rights occur > and that some human rights can only be implemented progressively is not an > argument for the lack of their binding character but only evidence of the > imperfect nature of the world. > > > The problem is, that if one thing is good for one person it may be > damaging for another. > Maybe. Right. One of the first steps in any rights analysis is to analyze whether the rights in question are truly in direct conflict or not. If not, then no compromise or balancing of any kind is necessary or desirable. > > > A very hungry man walks by an beautiful garden full of fruit trees, with > ripe fruits. The hungry man decides to take the risk, break in an feed > himself with fruits. > > Is it it "human right" to have access to food? > > > IN a previous recent message Daniel Kalchev responded to me claiming he did not understand how property rights and human rights could conflict. Now we gives his own example of just such a possible conflict. I consider Daniel Kalchev to have answered himself on this (and some other) questions, so I'll not respond specifically to that message. > Violation of human rights happen all the time. There is no other way for > violations of human rights to stop, except all humans being dead. > > > So what? Theft, a violation of property rights, occurs all the time and probably will always occur. Should we then give up on property rights? To me, the fact that a right is often violated is pretty close to full proof that the right is valuable and thus subject to risks of being taken or violated.... Unfortunately, other people often point to the frequency of apparent violation of rights and use these alleged facts to argue, or assume, that the right doesn't exist. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jan 17 10:12:12 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:12:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? In-Reply-To: References: <47F99A23-D555-47B8-B433-868F150548BC@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <013F8832-39A2-403C-B17A-12005E0CF65E@digsys.bg> On Jan 17, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > > A very hungry man walks by an beautiful garden full of fruit trees, with ripe fruits. The hungry man decides to take the risk, break in an feed himself with fruits. > > Is it it "human right" to have access to food? > > > IN a previous recent message Daniel Kalchev responded to me claiming he did not understand how property rights and human rights could conflict. Now we gives his own example of just such a possible conflict. I consider Daniel Kalchev to have answered himself on this (and some other) questions, so I'll not respond specifically to that message. I myself consider both "human rights". My unanswered question was as to how they are differently defined in your school. > > Violation of human rights happen all the time. There is no other way for violations of human rights to stop, except all humans being dead. > > > So what? Theft, a violation of property rights, occurs all the time and probably will always occur. Should we then give up on property rights? > To me, the fact that a right is often violated is pretty close to full proof that the right is valuable and thus subject to risks of being taken or violated.... Unfortunately, other people often point to the frequency of apparent violation of rights and use these alleged facts to argue, or assume, that the right doesn't exist. > If "property rights" is another form of "human rights", then your above statement is confusing. Do you advocate that because some of the "human rights" do not get enough publicity they are not important enough to care for? Which is true? - we hear more about restrictions to Internet access so we declare it as "human right" - we don't hear much about access to Internet, so we declare it is not an "human right" At the end, I wonder what is the purpose to define "access to Internet" as an "human right"? Whom will it benefit? Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 10:23:20 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:23:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4F159268.7040909@gmail.com> Ask anyone in africa with HIV who does not have access to treatment (because of high costs charged by BigPharma)... the right to health/life is lower than "authors rights"... these were the forces that were strengthened during the go-go 90s in the first world... and while there is a legal right to copy medicines (compulsory licensing) many countries cannot because of the unilateral use by the US of its Super 301 "name and shame" list of countries who do not protect its intellectual property rights... the IPR rentier class is powerful and SOPA and PIPA may be watered down a little but they are coming ... if not in local legislation then via Free Trade Agreements that the US signs... what can I say, welcome to Africa! On 2012/01/17 04:25 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Property rights is one of the human rights. How could property rights > be against other human rights? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 17 10:38:05 2012 From: george.todoroff.85 at gmail.com (George Todoroff) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:38:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_?= =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?=2E=E1=E3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?= In-Reply-To: <002401ccbe50$4ef7b720$ece72560$@yahoo.com> References: <1324063591.24101.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1D754A3E-670E-4418-886D-3228143B332F@acm.org> <00bf01ccbe19$885feeb0$991fcc10$@yahoo.com> <4EEEEB17.9000903@digsys.bg> <002401ccbe50$4ef7b720$ece72560$@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, I learned that on 4 January there was a meeting in the Bulgarian Ministry of IT, regarding the IDN ccTLD application. Can someone share what was discussed there? Cheers, George 2011/12/19 Imran Ahmed Shah : >> Otherwise I am confused by your proposal. Are you suggesting that the >> Bulgarian IDN domain be granted for management to the BR (Brasilia) >> registry? Likewise for the Greek domain? > > [IAS] It's just matter of explanation of implementation. Quoted reference is > just to give a reference of my wording that the changing ownership change > the implementation and may resolve the confusions. You are confused because > if you think that Brazil will be getting Cyrillic .бг as a IDN ccTLD, No, > not at all, (your unnecessary confusion will benefit (innocently) refusal > decision). > Just think if Brazilian ccTLD manager takes Cyrillic .бг as a new gTLD, > does it has any conflict when Bulgarians release the claim for .бг as IDN > ccTLD. > >>I see two problems with this approach: >>- ccTLDs are by definition created to serve the "local community" and in > particular expected to serve the local community according to local laws, > local traditions and more importantly in local language. > > [IAS] not only ccTLD but the IDN ccTLD is expected to server the "local > community" by any means, but why IDN strings are being compared / evaluated > with the strings of other languages, ASCI or other IDN tables to explore any > confusion or conflicts. > >>This becomes even more pronounced with IDN ccTLDs. >>- the IDN ccTLD specifically involves the national Governments, thereby > making the case of an externally managed IDN ccTLD unworkable. > > [IAS] according to their new definition, even both ccTLDs are managed > locally but the operators are different FT policy will not allow. > >>- there is no way to give precedence to ASCII ccTLDs over IDN ccTLDs. In > the long term, ASCII ccTLDs may in fact become minority. > Might be, but, I think the ASCII and IDN both will equally workable in new > gTLD framework to break (or at least crack) the skeleton of current domain > of popular TLDs. > > Imran > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On >> Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev >> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 12:43 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar > to other >> Latin ccTLDs? >> >> Dear Imran, >> >> There are concerns, that the amendmends address primarily "the EU case", >> where the string is confusable "with itself". Perhaps this is something > that >> has to be addressed/clarified. >> >> Otherwise I am confused by your proposal. Are you suggesting that the >> Bulgarian IDN domain be granted for management to the BR (Brasilia) >> registry? Likewise for the Greek domain? >> >> I see two problems with this approach: >> - ccTLDs are by definition created to serve the "local community" and in >> particular expected to serve the local community according to local laws, > local >> traditions and more importantly in local language. This becomes even more >> pronounced with IDN ccTLDs. >> - the IDN ccTLD specifically involves the national Governments, thereby >> making the case of an externally managed IDN ccTLD unworkable. >> - there is no way to give precedence to ASCII ccTLDs over IDN ccTLDs. In > the >> long term, ASCII ccTLDs may in fact become minority. >> >> [joke mode] >> We could certainly imagine, that the new Brasilian President, who is of >> Bulgarian descent could be excited that their local registry could run the > new >> Bulgarian IDN ccTLD. That could eventually encourage mutual business, as > the >> Brasilian ccTLD manager opens office, local phone numbers, employs >> Bulgarian speakers etc. Just to please globalism. >> [joke mode off] >> >> The good outcome is, that this development has proven all those who >> claimed the IDN Fast Track is set in stone wrong. It remains to be seen if > their >> other claims hold water. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 19.12.11 08:43, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> > Hi Avri, thank you for your apology. (shows your greatness). ccNSO >> > Council letter, Resolution and endorsement by the board for the >> > revision of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track provides strong evidence and >> > example that 1. IDN ccTLD Fast Track (a limited & short term >> > Implementation Program) was amendable/modifiable. 2. Key resources >> > understands and acknowledged that similarity can be helpful. 3. The >> > option/provisioning for adoption of such similar strings was also >> > known to them. 4. [important] They allowed this option for (and >> > within) territory and if the applicant for IDN ccTLD & ccTLD Registry >> > Operator are same. 5. [very important] They intentionally disallowed >> > the same option for others (out of territory = Global context) and if >> > the applicants for IDN ccTLD & ccTLD Registry Operator are two >> > separate entities. The same option /provisioning, we could use (to >> > claim) for the implementation of Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg). >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > ------ Just for reference quoting my previous words: (Sent: Thursday, >> > November 10, 2011 07:56 PM) ---------------------------------------- " >> > New study tells that instead of changing the consumer minds, change of >> > the ownership of the products or services or command may give you >> > better results. So, applying this new approach, will give following >> > results: .бг to .br .ελ to .EA (consumers will be offered to enjoy > the >> > Visual Similarity, even the .bg users will also be able to get their >> > domain registered Блгария.Бг) Now, read it again and smile, it > has >> > become a commercial model. New gTLD have no concern, what IDN >> Language >> > do you select." >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > ------ We can still right to the Board, similar letter, we can also >> > write to ICANN Ombudsman that this revision is again reducing Internet >> > implementation to a territory (locally) instead of Globally and not >> > providing equal opportunity for everyone. We can also demand to expand >> > same policy for global implementation as well. Thanks for every one on >> > sharing thoughts for a combine initiatives in public interest. Regards >> > Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> -----Original Message----- From: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: >> >> Sunday, December 18, 2011 07:07 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] >> >> Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar >> > to other >> >> Latin ccTLDs? On 16 Dec 2011, at 14:26, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Just to update about the revised version of ICANN's IDN ccTLD Fast >> > Track: >> >>> Still we were not able to draft or send letter to ccNSO and Board. >> >> I apologize, I started working on a letter and then got bogged down >> >> in >> > trying >> >> to find a convincing argument; they all make sense when argued here, >> >> but >> > in >> >> terms of crafting a note to the Board that uses existing ICANN policy >> >> and process and is difficult to ignore, was the challenge. Then I got >> >> distracted by other activities. I keep thinking I need to get >> > back to >> >> doing it, but haven't yet. I keep telling myself next week, and then >> >> next week I don't. Do people feel there is still a chance we can >> >> budge the ICANN Board on >> > this >> >> issue? >> >>> =========== ...."Following the ICANN Board's approval on 8 December >> >>> 2011 of the >> >> amendment to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan, >> >>> ICANN is providing this notice of publication for the Revised >> >>> Implementation Plan. This amendment was considered following >> >>> guidance received from the >> >> ccNSO during the ICANN meeting in Dakar, Senegal. >> >>> Two versions are posted: 1) the revised IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process >> >>> Implementation Plan >> >> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementati >> >> on- >> >> plan-15dec11-en.pdf[PDF, 851 KB]) >> >>> and 2) a version that tracks the changes from the previous version >> >> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementati >> >> on- plan-redline-15dec11-en.pdf[PDF, 902 KB]). >> >>> The community should take note that the original version of the IDN >> > ccTLD >> >> Fast Track Process Implementation Plan is now archived and superseded >> >> by the Revised Implementation Plan. >> >>> Background >> >> Does this change affect the Bulgarian issue at all? I did not think >> >> so, >> > since >> >> they were not saying it was the ASCII ccTLD for Bulgaria that was >> > confusing. >> >> It is good that the acknowledgement that reaching out to a linguistic >> > expert >> >> should not be a rare occurrence, and perhaps that is relevant. avri >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ You >> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information >> >> and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To >> >> edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: >> >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ You >> > received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information >> > and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To >> > edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: >> > http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> __________________________________________________________ >> __ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Jan 17 10:46:40 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:46:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:59:59 +0000) References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120117154640.D391E15C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > Mainly, my opposition to the notion is that I fear creeping > intergovernmentalism. We see multiple examples of governments trying > to control various aspects of the Internet, and frankly I don't > particularly appreciate it. I also don't appreciate those governmental attempts to be in control of the Internet. On the other hand, governments have some legitimate and necessary roles which don't stop where the Internet starts. This is in fact one of my motivations to push for a principle oriented approach to the roles of governments in Internet governance, in which human rights must be emphasized and considered to have higher priority than all other principles. (In this I'm joining Parminder and others who have been working on this long before I came along.) While I'm quite aware that what I have in mind differs quite significantly from what the government people who coined the term "enhanced cooperation" had in mind, I see no reason why that "enhanced cooperation" thing that is mentioned in the Tunis Agenda (and that is now on the UN's agenda) couldn't be designed to be principle oriented in this way. This would help governments become more aware of what are the kinds of action that they can take in Internet governance without harming human rights principles (examples of actions that they can take without causing harm to human rights, and IMO should in fact take, include: using the Internet themselves in an exemplary manner, creating net neutrality legislation, and laws by which internet intermediaries can conduct their business without risk of liability if users should publish illegal content and without having to censor what users can publish) and what on the other hand are kinds of actions that would create worse human rights problems than such actions can possibly solve. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jan 17 09:44:18 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:44:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. Depends on what you mean by a right of access. Christians (well, Protestants) fought tenaciously for the right to print it themselves, read it themselves, and make their own interpretations. But none of them asked the government to buy them a copy. And when they did, they immediately got into new wars over what would be the official state religion. The idea that states provide things with no strings attached is nonsense. I think you are just being misled by the semantic distinction between government subsidies as a "right" and a right not to have others deny you or take away access. -------------- 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 judyokite at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 12:12:47 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:12:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <01e601ccd51b$943dc090$bcb941b0$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <01e601ccd51b$943dc090$bcb941b0$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: I agree....lets go on strike and explain, why. Kind Regards, “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” Kofi Annan On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi < Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote: > +1 > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí > ___________________________________________ > > Reseach Associate > Department of Political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer) > Geschwister Scholl Institute of Political Sciences > Ludwig Maximilians University Munich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im > Auftrag > von Adam Peake > Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2012 14:15 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can > our sitesjoin ? > > Agree > > Adam > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You make a good argument. > > Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the > page is the most important part of this. > > > > avri > > > > On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can > create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are > barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the > strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence > more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and > find out what SOPA means to them. > >> - - - > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed > feeling about it. > >> > >> In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us > if > the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. > >> And that i very much support. > >> > >> But who is going to miss them during the strike? > >> > >> a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how > distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and > beleive > this would make it much worse, crowd; or > >> > >> b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another > will > breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired > that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. > >> > >> As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object > either way. > >> > >> avri > >> - - - > >> > >> On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > From: Donny Shaw > >> > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > >> > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > >> > To: > >> > > >> > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. > Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet > censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > >> > > >> > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, > Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform > and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. > If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > >> > > >> > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > >> > > >> > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share > this: > >> > > >> > > >> > Thank You! > >> > > >> > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 12:13:04 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:13:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible Really? You better revise your views apart the many secret cults (orphism, Gnosticism, Cathars, etc) the Catholic Church - mainstream, right? - put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books http://withchrist.org/archives.htm aldo On 17 January 2012 15:44, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or > any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the > "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. *** > * > > Depends on what you mean by a right of access. Christians (well, > Protestants) fought tenaciously for the right to print it themselves, read > it themselves, and make their own interpretations. **** > > But none of them asked the government to buy them a copy. And when they > did, they immediately got into new wars over what would be the official > state religion. The idea that states provide things with no strings > attached is nonsense. **** > > I think you are just being misled by the semantic distinction between > government subsidies as a "right" and a right not to have others deny you > or take away 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 > > > -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 17 12:15:34 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:15:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or > any other religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the > "Technology" of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible. *** > * > > Depends on what you mean by a right of access. Christians (well, > Protestants) fought tenaciously for the right to print it themselves, read > it themselves, and make their own interpretations. **** > > But none of them asked the government to buy them a copy. And when they > did, they immediately got into new wars over what would be the official > state religion. The idea that states provide things with no strings > attached is nonsense. **** > > I think you are just being misled by the semantic distinction between > government subsidies as a "right" and a right not to have others deny you > or take away access. **** > > ** > Not sure how I am "misled" by this distinction because, elsewhere in these threads on the Cerf oped, I expressly raised this distinction between a "right of access" and a "right of government-paid access." -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 12:20:00 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:20:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Voeux Vox internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cher Programme, Je pensais que Vox Internet avait une place particuliere dans ce domaine d'etude, en particulier du fait des acteurs impliques. Abandonnent-ils la gouvernance de l'internet comme theme d'investigation ou vont-ils s'orienter vers d'autres forums/programmes de recherche? En tout cas, felicitations pour les 3 ans accomplis et a bientot, j'espere! Mawaki On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Programme de recherche Vox Internet wrote: > Cher-e-s collègues et ami-e-s, > > > > C’est la dernière saison des vœux pour Vox Internet : le programme de > recherche se clot définitivement avec la publication prochaine de l’ouvrage > collectif « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, > 1er trimestre 2012, cf ci-joint). > > > > À toutes fins utiles, les archives du portail du programme sont consultables > à l’adresse suivante : www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. > > > > En vous remerciant pour votre collaboration ou votre écoute, je vous > souhaite au nom de l’équipe du programme tous mes meilleurs vœux pour 2012. > > > > Françoise Massit-Folléa > > f.massit at orange.fr > > > > > > Dear colleagues and friends, > > > > Here are the last season’s greetings from the Vox Internet research > program : it comes to an end with the forthcoming collective book > « Normative Experience in Internet Politics » (Presses des Mines, Paris, 1st > quarter 2012 – see attached). > > > > If necessary, you will find the archives of the web portal at the following > address : > > www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet. > > > > We thank you for your collaboration or interest and we wish you a very happy > new year. > > > > On behalf of the Vox Internet team, > > Françoise Massit-Folléa > > f.massit at orange.fr > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 12:22:58 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:22:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2087988@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > It would be odd for an evangelist of the Christian religion, or any other > religion, to argue that people had no right of access to the "Technology" > of the Christian religion - the book known as the Bible > > Really? > > You better revise your views > > apart the many secret cults (orphism, Gnosticism, Cathars, etc) the > Catholic Church - mainstream, right? - put the Bible on the Index of > Forbidden Books > Those secret cults are, indeed, odd. It's odd no matter who does it, or did it. This is probably not the "revision of views" you were suggesting, but, there it is. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS Aldo, I like your own blogging much better, it's far less contrarian to my stated position here than you are. Some highlights from your blogs, and links so folks can check them out, follow (with emphases added): "His argumentation is catchy, but muddles the issues; *Mr. CERF, it seems to me, ends up shooting himself in the foot. "* http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/internet-access-as-human-right-mr-cerf-shoots-himself-in-the-foot/ “Freedom of speech” is an abstract right. Its exercise necessarily relies on technologies: from the human voice to paper, radio and so on – and must apply automatically to all supports through which it is exercised – internet being the latest (but certainly not the last) kid on the block. *When radio or TV emerged in the US no one seriously argued that the “right to free speech” as enshrined in the First Amendment did not apply to them “because they were only an enabler”. As long as content and support are inextricably wedded (and control of the content would be through the support) Mr. CERF’s argument “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself” is spurious.*" "The UN Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR)[2] and the European Convention on Human Rights[3] are clear on the fact that *the abstract right is embedded in the technologies*. UNDHR: Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas *through any media* and regardless of frontiers." http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a8 (emphasis mine). http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/internet-access-as-human-right-mr-cerf-shoots-himself-in-the-foot/ > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 12:33:32 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:33:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> Message-ID: <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> Agreed. Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:12:22 To: IGC Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? Hi, You make a good argument. Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of the page is the most important part of this. avri On 17 Jan 2012, at 04:49, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > For any strike one can argue on the positive and negative impact it can create on individuals. In this case a large majority of internauts are barely or not at all aware that a strike is in the offing. Joining the strike is a way to give it more visibility and coverage in the media. Hence more people will discover that there is a problem, and hopefully try and find out what SOPA means to them. > - - - > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 19:07, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > As I see this advertised more and more, I find I really have mixed feeling about it. > > In one sense, like all strikes it says , see how much you will miss us if the SOPA/PIPA/New Delhi/../China inspired . censorships moves continue. > And that i very much support. > > But who is going to miss them during the strike? > > a. The people who appreciate freedoms of expression - no badly how distorted they are now by moneyed and other powered influences - and beleive this would make it much worse, crowd; or > > b. The people who want to shut things down for one reason or another will breath a sigh of relief, show that the world did not end and feel inspired that: yes, they are doing the eight thing. > > As for Michael's question related to the IGC site, I would not object either way. > > avri > - - - > > On 14 Jan 2012, at 10:23, michael gurstein wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Donny Shaw > > Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM > > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Web Goes on Strike! > > To: > > > > On Jan. 18th there is going to be an all-out strike on the internet. Websites across the internet are going dark in protest of the internet censorship bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA. > > > > Some of the biggest sites in the world are participating: Reddit, Mozilla. And some others may join (e.g. a leading micro-blogging platform and a popular collaboratively-written encyclopedia), but they need a nudge. If we can get them to join this will be EPIC. > > > > Ask the biggest sites on the internet to join the strike. Click here. > > > > If you're on Facebook or Twitter, please use these links to share this: > > > > > > Thank You! > > > > -Donny and the rest of the Fight for the Future crew > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jan 17 14:54:56 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:54:56 +1100 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let me see if I can summarise this, as I think there is a lot more common ground that meets the eye. No one ­ and I think Vint Cerf is included here ­ is denying that denial of access to the Internet is denial of a human right. I don¹t think we have any disagreement here about that. (except perhaps with my expression) The discussion only seems to be about whether the right being denied might be a more broadly expressed one such as the right to communicate, the right to access knowledge, or the right of free speech ­ or whether there should be a specific human right labelled access to 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 17 16:13:45 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:13:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA Message-ID: *Dear All,* * * *We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and India's Intermediary Guideline Rules. I have also gleaned from concerns on freedom of expression in other countries that have been subject to List discussions in the past year etc. This is a first Draft in text as well as attached for those who may wish to add their tracked changes, edits and comments before 2200 UTC +12 18th January, 2012.* * * * * *Draft Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on Censorship (SOPA/PIPA/IGR)* We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary censorship of the internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly use the internet. We note with increasing concern the the various censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA). Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary internet users all over the world. We note that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and urge governments who have ratified the ICCPR to abide by their commitments. Whilst freedom of expression has limitations, these limitations are on the verge of being extended to accommodate assault on freedom of expression and the openness of the internet. Whilst the exception has been provided for it does not mean that it can be abused. For jurisdictions which have legitimate governments where people can truly have their say in the laws that their legislators dish out or choose their representatives to Parliament or Congress, it is critical that even more so, civil society is seen to make a stand. We have observed with great concern threats to freedom of expression on countries such as Republique Democratique du Congo, China and Syria. We have watched with joy as Burma continues to relax its censorship of online content. Countries can mature in aspects of freedom of expression and it takes awareness, outreach and dialogue. For a country like the USA to pass SOPA or PIPA as law at the expense of freedom of expression is a realisation that the assault on freedom of expression does not know borders. We stand with civil society organisations in the United States of America and abroad who are collectively raising their voice against the SOPA and PIPA. We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet. *ENDS* -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:32:11 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:32:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Jan 17, 2012 5:15 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > *Dear All,* > > * > * > > *We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and > India's Intermediary Guideline Rules. I have also gleaned from concerns on > freedom of expression in other countries that have been subject to List > discussions in the past year etc. This is a first Draft in text as well as > attached for those who may wish to add their tracked changes, edits and > comments before 2200 UTC +12 18th January, 2012.* > > * > * > > * > * > > *Draft Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on > Censorship (SOPA/PIPA/IGR)* > > We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary > censorship of the internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly > use the internet. We note with increasing concern the the various > censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s > Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop > Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA). > > > Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary internet users all > over the world. > > We note that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and urge governments who have ratified the ICCPR > to abide by their commitments. Whilst freedom of expression has > limitations, these limitations are on the verge of being extended to > accommodate assault on freedom of expression and the openness of the > internet. > > > Whilst the exception has been provided for it does not mean that it can > be abused. For jurisdictions which have legitimate governments where people > can truly have their say in the laws that their legislators dish out or > choose their representatives to Parliament or Congress, it is critical that > even more so, civil society is seen to make a stand. > > We have observed with great concern threats to freedom of expression on > countries such as Republique Democratique du Congo, China and Syria. > > > We have watched with joy as Burma continues to relax its censorship of > online content. Countries can mature in aspects of freedom of expression > and it takes awareness, outreach and dialogue. > > For a country like the USA to pass SOPA or PIPA as law at the expense of > freedom of expression is a realisation that the assault on freedom of > expression does not know borders. We stand with civil society organisations > in the United States of America and abroad who are collectively raising > their voice against the SOPA and PIPA. > > > We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to > help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage > in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet. > > *ENDS* > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:35:15 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:35:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Let me see if I can summarise this, as I think there is a lot more > common ground that meets the eye. > > No one – and I think Vint Cerf is included here – is denying that denial > of access to the Internet is denial of a human right. I don’t think we have > any disagreement here about that. (except perhaps with my expression) > No I think Cerf denies that access to the internet is a civil or human right, in that he calls only for Cerf is saying, in his conclusion, that anyone who believes internet access is a right is PRETENDING. It is not a civil or a political right, argues Cerf. Immediately prior to his conclusion sentence stating we should not pretend that access itself is "such a right", Cerf specifically references "appreciation for" (not "obedience to") civil and human rights as the responsibility of "engineers" (not society, or governments), and then further qualifies these limitations by stating that even the "tremendous responsiblity" of engineers is limited to those civil rights "*that deserve protection*." Clearly, Cerf does not believe that internet access is either a civil right or a human right *THAT DESERVES PROTECTION*, because he has just argued the same. He also states that anyone who says internet access rights exist as a right is merely "pretending." I've broken down his article into 14 separate assertions so you can follow the train of his thought. Bracketed items are my comments, interspersed: 1. Arab Spring demonstrations thrived and could never have happened as they did without the Internet 2. This raises the question whether Internet access is or should be a civil or human right. 3. Cites three international events stating internet as HUMAN right. 4. States that this argument misses a larger point: technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. 5. Claims human rights have a high bar of access, and "must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience." 6. Argues it's a mistake to place any tech in the category of human rights, because tech progress will then destroy the right, using the example of horses being useless (to Cerf) today, had they been a right of the past. 7. Offers that the best way to decide rights is by the outcomes we are trying to insure. 8. The same goes for internet access as a CIVIL right, though the argument for it being a civil right he says is stronger than as a human right. Civil rights are provided by law, and not intrinsic to us as human beings [therefore the case for internet access as a civil right is stronger, but he doesn't say how much stronger, and doesn't imply it's strong enough to win because the "same argument applies" as he just made for human rights levels] 9. Calls various types of "universal service" whether of telephone, electricity or internet, as "edging toward" the idea of technology as a civil right. [It appears Cerf would not think it unjust nor a violation of any rights, civil or human, to deny a remote rural person or village of telephone, electricity as well as internet, at least if the costs were prohibitive] 10. Refers to the duty or "responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights." [But, per the above, the human right to internet, or electricity service doesn't properly exist because it's "technology", and the duty to support civil rights is no more than a duty to follow the law of the land, which is expected of everyone and therefore can't ennoble technology creators.] 11. States "technologists" have a "tremendous responsibility" to empower internet users and keep them safe from viruses, etc., but does not specify where this responsibility comes from, or if it is binding law (in his view of what the law ought to be motivated by, which is what this essay is about] 12. Cites engineers and private standard-setting associations as deserving credit and responsibility for empowering users and keeping them safe from viruses, etc., because they "create and maintain" these things. 13. Appeals to "civil responsibilities" AMONG ENGINEERS, in addition to engineering expertise to achieve the goals of empowerment and safety on the internet. [Does not call for creating or repealing legislation, nor for following the civil rights laws, per se] 14. Concludes by stating that improving the internet must be done with an appreciation for civil and human rights THAT DESERVE PROTECTION -- without PRETENDING that access itself is such a right. > > The discussion only seems to be about whether the right being denied > might be a more broadly expressed one such as the right to communicate, > the right to access knowledge, or the right of free speech – or whether > there should be a specific human right labelled access to the Internet. > You can re-read his article for yourself and compare it to my summary and comments above, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=2 Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jan 17 16:43:03 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:43:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F15EB67.8070705@eff.org> Hi Salanieta, If you think it ok, it would be great if you can point out to http://blacklists.eff.org/ Many sites will be pointing to it. It has its own server so we can receive as much traffic as wikipedia. :) On 1/17/12 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > *Dear All,* > > * > * > > *We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA > and India's Intermediary Guideline Rules. I have also gleaned from > concerns on freedom of expression in other countries that have been > subject to List discussions in the past year etc. This is a first > Draft in text as well as attached for those who may wish to add their > tracked changes, edits and comments before 2200 UTC +12 18th January, > 2012.* > > * > * > > * > * > > *Draft Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on > Censorship (SOPA/PIPA/IGR)* > > We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the > arbitrary censorship of the internet which violates people’s rights to > responsibly use the internet. We note with increasing concern the the > various censorship mechanisms around the world including but not > limited to India’s Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United > States of America’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act > (PIPA). > > > Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary internet users all > over the world. > > We note that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and urge governments who have ratified the > ICCPR to abide by their commitments. Whilst freedom of expression has > limitations, these limitations are on the verge of being extended to > accommodate assault on freedom of expression and the openness of the > internet. > > > Whilst the exception has been provided for it does not mean that it > can be abused. For jurisdictions which have legitimate governments > where people can truly have their say in the laws that their > legislators dish out or choose their representatives to Parliament or > Congress, it is critical that even more so, civil society is seen to > make a stand. > > We have observed with great concern threats to freedom of expression > on countries such as Republique Democratique du Congo, China and Syria. > > > We have watched with joy as Burma continues to relax its censorship of > online content. Countries can mature in aspects of freedom of > expression and it takes awareness, outreach and dialogue. > > For a country like the USA to pass SOPA or PIPA as law at the expense > of freedom of expression is a realisation that the assault on freedom > of expression does not know borders. We stand with civil society > organisations in the United States of America and abroad who are > collectively raising their voice against the SOPA and PIPA. > > > We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue > to help governments, members of the private sector and civil society > to engage in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of > the internet. > > *ENDS* > > > -- > 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 17 16:44:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:44:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA In-Reply-To: <4F15EB67.8070705@eff.org> References: <4F15EB67.8070705@eff.org> Message-ID: Sure, I will make reference to it. :) On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Salanieta, > > If you think it ok, it would be great if you can point out to > http://blacklists.eff.org/ Many sites will be pointing to it. It has its > own server so we can receive as much traffic as wikipedia. :) > > > > On 1/17/12 1:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > *Dear All,* > > * > * > > *We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and > India's Intermediary Guideline Rules. I have also gleaned from concerns on > freedom of expression in other countries that have been subject to List > discussions in the past year etc. This is a first Draft in text as well as > attached for those who may wish to add their tracked changes, edits and > comments before 2200 UTC +12 18th January, 2012.* > > * > * > > * > * > > *Draft Statement by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus on > Censorship (SOPA/PIPA/IGR)* > > We have made a decision to join the black out in protest of the arbitrary > censorship of the internet which violates people’s rights to responsibly > use the internet. We note with increasing concern the the various > censorship mechanisms around the world including but not limited to India’s > Intermediary Guideline Rules (IGR) nor the United States of America’s Stop > Online Piracy Act (SOPA)and Protect IP Act (PIPA). > > > Any country’s censorship mechanisms affect ordinary internet users all > over the world. > > We note that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and urge governments who have ratified the ICCPR > to abide by their commitments. Whilst freedom of expression has > limitations, these limitations are on the verge of being extended to > accommodate assault on freedom of expression and the openness of the > internet. > > > Whilst the exception has been provided for it does not mean that it can > be abused. For jurisdictions which have legitimate governments where people > can truly have their say in the laws that their legislators dish out or > choose their representatives to Parliament or Congress, it is critical that > even more so, civil society is seen to make a stand. > > We have observed with great concern threats to freedom of expression on > countries such as Republique Democratique du Congo, China and Syria. > > > We have watched with joy as Burma continues to relax its censorship of > online content. Countries can mature in aspects of freedom of expression > and it takes awareness, outreach and dialogue. > > For a country like the USA to pass SOPA or PIPA as law at the expense of > freedom of expression is a realisation that the assault on freedom of > expression does not know borders. We stand with civil society organisations > in the United States of America and abroad who are collectively raising > their voice against the SOPA and PIPA. > > > We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to > help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage > in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet. > > *ENDS* > > -- > 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Tue Jan 17 16:53:54 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:53:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: Sure the front page will need to clearly give details for the strike. Sonigitu On 17 Jan 2012 18:33, wrote: Agreed. Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Sender: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: ... Hi, You make a good argument. Which means to me that the front page note explaining the absence of... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Jan 17 16:54:26 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:54:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Freedom and the Digital Earthquake of 2011 - Michael H Posner Message-ID: Thought this made interesting reading in light of everything ... ------ January 17, 2012 Internet Freedom and the Digital Earthquake of 2011 Remarks by Michael H. Posner Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Remarks to the State of the Net Conference Washington, DC Thank you for inviting me. Actually, the truth is that I invited myself because I care so much about these issues. And Jerry Berman and Tim Lordan of the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee were gracious to allow me to speak with you. I am here to speak about Internet freedom as a foundation for the 21 st Century human rights agenda. It is a pleasure to be joined by Christine Varney, a lawyer’s lawyer who is much missed inside the Obama administration. And I see here in the audience a large number of friends from Congress, from corporations and from NGOs who have all helped to map out smart and principled Internet policies for our government. They have also helped shape policies for socially responsible companies to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms online. Together, we aim to preserve the promise of the Internet as we know it, and as Gary said, in the face of growing threats to the freedom and integrity of the global network. This past year has highlighted the promise and the peril of the Internet as a transformative tool both for human expression and for repression. So I would like to look back at the lessons learned from the digital earthquake of 2011, and offer a few thoughts on the way forward. It was almost exactly a year ago, on January 15, that Tunisian president Zine Ben Ali boarded a plane in Tunis with his family and departed for Saudi Arabia. Twenty-seven days later, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned. Eight months later, Moammar Gaddafi was gone. A month after that, Yemen’s President Saleh announced his resignation. Time Magazine named the “Protestor” as its Person of the Year in 2011. The Arab Awakening has been like a geopolitical earthquake sending aftershocks rumbling around the world. Repressive regimes trembled at the power of people connected, and redoubled their attempts to crack down. They did it by jailing bloggers, hijacking Facebook pages, and, in the case of Iran, requiring cybercafés to install surveillance cameras. They managed to buy sophisticated technologies to sniff out digital dissidents and silence them. Meanwhile, some governments are trying to impose national and international restrictions that would cripple the exercise of human rights online. They are using terms like, quote, “information security” and “internet management” to try to justify repression. We must protect the free flow of information and also the integrity of the network. By that I mean the interoperability of the network both in the technical sense – the ability of the cables and servers that transfer data to talk to each other – and in the sense that countries must not isolate their citizens inside national intranets. Whether you call this a “halal Internet” or a “hate-free Internet,” it’s a digital bubble. It’s locking people inside a world of government-controlled content and cutting them off from rest of the world. These trends are not news to most of you, or to us, either. But they are intensifying. It’s been almost exactly two years since my boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave her first major speech on Internet freedom at the Newseum. She made history by declaring two things that seem glaringly obvious now: First, that the universal human rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association apply online as they do offline; and second, that promoting those rights online must be a U.S. foreign policy priority. Since then she has consistently warned that protecting human rights, and intellectual property rights, and the ability of law enforcement officials to stop online crime and cyber stability and security will be challenging -- but essential. The Arab Awakening has upped the stakes further, most of all for activists trying to change repressive regimes from within. People are using technology as a battering ram against the walls of fear and isolation that dictatorships erect to keep their populations quiescent. In country after country where governments have controlled nearly every aspect of life, people are demanding openness and accountability, as well as jobs and opportunity, using old ways and new ways to make themselves heard. They’ve done it online, and by risking life and limb on the streets; they’ve done it in song and text message, and in videos smuggled across borders when the Internet is turned off. It turns out that two billion networked users are nearly impossible to silence. In my world, the world of human rights, this new capacity for instant communication and participation has created an unprecedented dynamic. Let me give you an example. Last week in Syria, Arab League Human Rights monitors complained -- unofficially -- that they were not being permitted to view protests or interview demonstrators or travel freely to observe events. Yet that same day, anyone with an Internet connection could watch horrific footage on YouTube of wounded protestors in Syria who appeared to be dying on camera. Syria is not having a Facebook revolution or a Twitter revolt or a YouTube winter. Syria is having a mass outbreak of courage. Tens of thousands of demonstrators know they risk arrest, torture and death if they take to the streets. But they’re doing it anyway. Day after day. Their courage does not emanate from any digital device. It comes from knowing that they are not alone. So yes, the Internet is empowering. Yet we agree with Vincent Cerf, who wrote in an op-ed piece last month that Internet access is not itself a human right. Freedom of expression, assembly and association are human rights. Technology can enable those rights. Technology is not a substitute for political organizing or advocacy or persuasion. The Internet does not bring people into the street. Grievances do. The Internet did not spark the Arab Spring. Injustice did. It’s worth noting that the Arab Spring did not start because of Twitter. It started because of the heartbreaking decision by one vegetable vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi, to set himself ablaze. Connective technologies are powerful tools for strengthening and amplifying the bonds between people and organizations -- for good and for ill. Last year, they enabled terrorists to recruit, and they enabled global cooperation to solve a myriad of human problems by transcending time zones, borders and even language barriers. The same connective technologies that enabled teenage bullies to orchestrate the persecution of their victims also enabled Russian activists to monitor parliamentary elections and then organize huge street demonstrations protesting the unfairness of those elections. But let me be clear about U.S. policy: We don’t promote Internet freedom or connective technologies as a means of promoting “regime change.” We promote the freedoms of expression, association and assembly online and offline because these universal freedoms are the birthright of every individual. Human rights and human dignity are not bestowed upon people by groups or governments, and no government should feel empowered to deny them. It is up to every individual -- and therefore the people of every country -- to decide how to exercise them. Let me state for the record that international law applies to online behavior. Full stop. We do not need to reinvent international human rights law, or our enduring principles, to account for the Internet. No deed is more evil -- or more noble -- when it is committed online rather than offline. You can’t sell child pornography in Farragut Square or Tahrir Square, and you can’t sell it on the Internet, either. You can’t break into a theater and steal the movie reels and you can’t steal movies online, either. You can’t beat up and gag a peaceful protestor and you can’t jail her for a blog post criticizing a government policy, either. Now, I said earlier that we agree that no one has a human right to any particular technology. But at the same time, we believe that creators and purveyors of technologies have a responsibility to respect human rights through their products and their practices. Moreover, the responsibility of corporations to respect human rights extends far beyond the creators of a given technology. It is the responsibility of every company. Last year, in a landmark move, the U.N. Human Rights Council recognized this corporate responsibility by endorsing John Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. But of course the challenge is always how to live out those principles in real time. Today, we’re all living a fishbowl, 24/7 live on webcam. Any one of us may face public scrutiny for any decision we make. It’s instant scrutiny. And most of us are still learning the new rules for life on webcam. That applies to politicians, and CEOs and also corporations. Companies are held to account by regulators and lawmakers, by the media and by individual consumers, who can now tarnish a global brand that took years to build with little more than a re-tweet. Last year, we saw media coverage, and social media attention, and scrutiny from lawmakers about cases in which tech companies were alleged to have helped repressive regimes crack down on their own people: Social networking companies pressured to hand over information about political activists, cell phone signals used to locate dissidents, and especially evidence that the latest greatest surveillance technologies have been sold to Syria and Iran and Moammar Gaddafi’s Libya. The moral issues in those cases are fairly cut-and-dry. But for tech companies, figuring out how to apply their principles to a messy and fast-changing world is much more complex -- and getting even tougher. Still, other industries have faced similar issues, and found a way forward. The smart companies have learned that the way to adapt to 24/7 scrutiny is to address the underlying issues before they find themselves in the crosshairs of controversy. Many have found it useful to collaborate with other companies – even their toughest competitors. Companies in the extractive industries, which pull resources out of the ground in some of the most conflict-wracked places on earth, have faced up to this problem. They joined with governments and NGOs in a collaborative effort to minimize the risk of human rights abuses. Private security contractors have faced up to the problem. More than two hundred of them have signed on to a new international code of conduct that addresses their use of force, and bans torture, sexual exploitation, human trafficking and forced labor. Apparel companies have faced the challenge of curbing sweatshop practices in the global supply chains. A number of them have joined together with NGOs and universities to allow scrutiny of their factories by independent auditors. So oil companies, garment makers and private security contractors are making money in hard places. Each has realized that one of the costs of doing business in those places is to assess the risks and to invest in developing principles, people and processes to address the human rights challenges they face. Technology companies now must do the same. And since nearly every tech company depends on the Internet to operate, all have a special stake in protecting the freedom and integrity of the Net, as well as the human rights of their customers. Their young customers may turn out to be the Nelson Mandelas and the Vaclev Havels, the Bill Gates or the Steve Jobs of their generations. Companies have a growing reputational interest in developing practical and credible ways to work together, and work with other key stakeholders, to address these challenges. That doesn’t mean that governments won’t consider sanctions or other means to prevent transfer of sensitive technologies to regimes that use them to violate human rights. Sanctions can be a valuable tool. The Commerce Department is investigating how technology made by a California company, called Blue Coat Systems, was diverted to Syria. The U.S. government is also committed to vigorous investigation of other allegations of dodging sanctions, whether directly or through middlemen. At the same time, we will continue, with international partners, to look at ways to make our sanctions smarter. But sanctions are not a perfect solution. No regulatory regime can substitute for thoughtful, proactive practices by corporations that must be mindful of the ways their products are likely to be used or abused in the real world. As Secretary Clinton said in The Hague last month, some companies come to the State Department and say, “Just tell us what to do and we’ll do it.” But that is not a durable solution. Companies are best positioned to ask themselves the hard questions, and their answers will evolve. They must make their own decisions about how and where to do business in parts of the world where laws are opaque, resale channels are murky and human rights are often abused. And they must realize that their decisions can affect real people in real time. We stand ready to help. We see companies tackling these issues best when they work together, and so we salute companies like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft who have joined with NGOs, social investors and academic institutions to form the Global Network Initiative. Last month, a company called Websense that sells filtering software to companies joined the GNI. Websense has committed to making sure its software doesn’t end up being used by governments to censor. For our part, those of us in government continue to work to turn our commitment to Internet freedom into reality –and in 2011 the U.S. and its international partners made a great deal of progress. First, last year 34 nations of the OECD adopted a Recommendation on Internet Policy Making Principles. It includes strong language for the multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance and for maintaining an open Internet. The United States supports this approach first because it’s working, and second because it brings together the best of governments, the private sector and civil society to manage the network. And it keeps in place a system that has kept the Internet up and running for years, all over the world. Second, 15 countries have now joined a group called the Coalition for Freedom Online, which was launched in The Hague last month. Secretary Clinton and I were there, and we were delighted to see the Coalition countries endorse a principled declaration and action plan. The coalition brings together governments, businesses, civil society and academics together to defend Internet freedom. The countries will share information and coordinate diplomatic efforts on a wide range of issues. They will stand up for the rights of netizens and cyber-activists. And these governments will work with tech companies on ways to promote respect for their customers’ human rights and fundamental freedoms. Going forward, we believe this coalition can advocate for a free and open platform for the next generation of users. These users will come mainly from the developing world, and they need to be part of this conversation. So we were pleased to see such a diverse group of countries step up to promote Internet freedom – from Ghana to Mongolia, Kenya to Mexico. I ask all of you to support and help grow the Coalition for Freedom Online, as we will. Third, to put muscle behind our policy, Secretary Clinton also announced in The Hague the creation of a Digital Defenders partnership that will help cyber-activists and netizens under threat. The United States and the Netherlands have committed funds to this initiative, and we hope others will as well. Fourth, we continue to fund a broad range of advocacy, technological responses and training programs aimed at defending human rights online. The State Department and USAID have already spent over $70 million on projects ranging from developing better circumvention technologies and “panic buttons” for mobile phones to training activists in cyber self-defense. Our slogan is “old rights, new apps.” Congress has been extremely supportive and directed us to continue these programs. My team in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor will keep combing the digital landscape for opportunities to invest in people and projects that will make a difference for embattled activists working in the hard places. So I want to thank each of you for your commitment to the vision of a world where people can enjoy more freedom, online and off. Technology and history converged in 2011 to bring momentous change. In 2012, we have the precious opportunity to harness that change to build a more open, prosperous and peaceful world. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Tue Jan 17 16:56:29 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:56:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good information. +1 Sea On 17 Jan 2012 22:33, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: +1 On Jan 17, 2012 5:15 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wro... > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and > India's ... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From briceabba at hotmail.com Tue Jan 17 18:34:46 2012 From: briceabba at hotmail.com (Brice Abba) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:34:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> ,<7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> Message-ID: Daniel, +1 :) From: daniel at digsys.bg Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:25:37 +0200 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: Question: Why would humans understand and support property rights on the Internet, but not understand or support human rights on the Internet? Answer: Businesses pay humans to advocate for business property rights, and to steer clear of advocating for human rights on the Internet except where absolutely necessary or supportive of the business' bottom line. Take away the voices (in our imagination) of those on the payroll of various businesses, and there would be every bit, if not more, acceptance of human rights on the Internet as there presently is for property rights on the Internet. I am still confused by all this. Perhaps it is some "western" type of thinking, but it just does not make sense to me.The same thing as when you argued about corporations being evil. Property rights is one of the human rights. How could property rights be against other human rights? If it is a matter of balance, or rather a need for humans to exist, then one can say for sure, that humans can exist without Internet. They can also exist without property. They can for some time to survive even without food, or water. I believe humans will survive least without air to breathe… My "fear" of declaring "access to Internet" is centered towards the abuse we see every day with regards to "human rights". Many are killed daily, in the name of "human rights". Countries are being invaded and drawn to war in the name of "human rights"…. to name few. Of course, everyone has the right to access the Internet. Call it human right or not.. it is just a choice of wording. In another language, in another culture it might mean something else. Even in the same language/culture it might mean something else with a different Government. We have seen this all the time. But in order to access the Internet, it has to be accessible to everyone. That means less regulation. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlos at ie9s.com Tue Jan 17 18:52:15 2012 From: carlos at ie9s.com (carlos watson) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:52:15 -0600 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement [ URGENT Call for Comments before 1800 UTC+12 ] #IGR #SOPA #PIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1+ cw On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Sonigitu Ekpe < sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng> wrote: > Good information. +1 > > Sea > > On 17 Jan 2012 22:33, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" < > tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > > On Jan 17, 2012 5:15 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wro... > >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > >> > We note that there is a consensus to protest against the SOPA, PIPA and >> India's ... >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jan 17 22:50:27 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:50:27 +0800 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> Here is what the site will look like in two hours' time: http://www.igcaucus.org/?sopa_test=1 Remove "?sopa_test=1" to see what it looks like now. -- 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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 17 23:01:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:01:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Fantastic work Jeremy, thanks. :) The mailing list will still be active but our website will join the strike. Katitza, likewise you can also mention the IGC site in your website as well. Sala On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Here is what the site will look like in two hours' time: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/?sopa_test=1 > > Remove "?sopa_test=1" to see what it looks like now. > > -- > > *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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jan 17 23:33:58 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:03:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4F164BB6.9000109@itforchange.net> I request to amend one thing in the following sentence We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet. It is the convention in global bodies to mention civil society before private sector, and we as CS-IGC shd at least do it. (Official docs of WSIS and post WSIS processes have been an aberration (with a significant meaning) to this custom.) parminder On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Fantastic work Jeremy, thanks. :) > > The mailing list will still be active but our website will join the > strike. Katitza, likewise you can also mention the IGC site in your > website as well. > > Sala > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > Here is what the site will look like in two hours' time: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/?sopa_test=1 > > Remove "?sopa_test=1" to see what it looks like now. > > -- > > *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 _ at 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 03:36:32 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:36:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: <4F164BB6.9000109@itforchange.net> References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> <4F164BB6.9000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > ** > I request to amend one thing in the following sentence > > We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage dialogue to > help governments, members of the private sector and civil society to engage > in dialogue to discuss how we can preserve the openness of the internet. > > The rationale behind this is that civil society is leading the discussion and dialogue already hence it being last in this instance. The positioning does not diminish the significance of civil society in any way. Thanks Parminder, we will remember the point you are highlighting for future drafts. > It is the convention in global bodies to mention civil society before > private sector, and we as CS-IGC shd at least do it. (Official docs of WSIS > and post WSIS processes have been an aberration (with a significant > meaning) to this custom.) > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Fantastic work Jeremy, thanks. :) > > The mailing list will still be active but our website will join the > strike. Katitza, likewise you can also mention the IGC site in your website > as well. > > Sala > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Here is what the site will look like in two hours' time: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/?sopa_test=1 >> >> Remove "?sopa_test=1" to see what it looks like now. >> >> -- >> >> *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.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jan 18 05:48:56 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:18:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Jan 18 : website strike against censorship - can our sitesjoin ? In-Reply-To: References: <3D69AAF1-F983-4485-9A94-C16B4F001FB2@acm.org> <869072835-1326821554-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-55874309-@b15.c5.bise6.blackberry> <5F81375B-89DA-4959-A285-316D76D543AF@ciroap.org> <4F164BB6.9000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F16A398.3090604@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 02:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > wrote: > > I request to amend one thing in the following sentence > > We urge all stakeholders of internet governance to encourage > dialogue to help governments, members of the private sector > and civil society to engage in dialogue to discuss how we can > preserve the openness of the internet. > > The rationale behind this is that civil society is leading the > discussion and dialogue already hence it being last in this instance. > The positioning does not diminish the significance of civil society in > any way. Sala, you have a point in this case, although I still prefer the right order. After all, it is not that we are 'the' civil society that is making this call. Anyway, mentioning business sector before civil society is becoming the norm in information society discourse, and I see it in sinister terms. In all other global political discourses, especially in the UN documents, it is always civil society before private sector actors. The standing of civil society is much different and higher in terms of public interest political actors than of the private sector. Parminder > > Thanks Parminder, we will remember the point you are highlighting for > future drafts. > > It is the convention in global bodies to mention civil society > before private sector, and we as CS-IGC shd at least do it. > (Official docs of WSIS and post WSIS processes have been an > aberration (with a significant meaning) to this custom.) > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 18 January 2012 09:31 AM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Fantastic work Jeremy, thanks. :) >> >> The mailing list will still be active but our website will join >> the strike. Katitza, likewise you can also mention the IGC site >> in your website as well. >> >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >> > wrote: >> >> Here is what the site will look like in two hours' time: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/?sopa_test=1 >> >> Remove "?sopa_test=1" to see what it looks like now. >> >> -- >> >> *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 _ at 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.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and 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.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jan 18 06:40:33 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:40:33 -0200 Subject: [governance] RETS shuts down site in protest against SOPA/PIPA Message-ID: <4F16AFB1.8010205@cafonso.ca> Dear people, The online magazine "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, has shut down its services in protest against SOPA-PIPA bills of law being considered by the US Congress. The shut down started at 00:00 Brasília time and will last for 24 hours today, January 18. The site's main page is still visible after 40 seconds, but any attempt to visit any option will return it to the protest page: http://www.rets.org.br We have chosen this Web site since it is by far the most visited among the sites managed by Nupef. Car*s amig*s, A "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, desativou o acesso a suas páginas às 00:00 de hoje, 18 de janeiro, hora de Brasília, juntando-se ao protesto mundial contra os projetos de lei SOPA e PIPA em trâmite no Congresso dos EUA. A página inicial do portal ainda é visível depois de 40 segundos, mas retorna à página de protesto em resposta ao clique em qualquer opção da página. http://www.rets.org.br Escolhemos este sítio Web porque é de longe o mais visitado entre os administrados pelo Nupef. Estimad*s amig*s, La revista online "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, ha desactivado el acceso a sus páginas a las 00:00 de hoy, 18 de enero, hora de Brasilia, para participar de la protesta mundial en contra de los proyectos de ley SOPA y PIPA en trámite en el Congreso de los EEUU. La página inicial del portal será visible en 40 segundos, pero retornará a la página de protesta en respuesta a cualquier intento de visita a las opciones de la página. http://www.rets.org.br Elegimos este sitio Web porque es de lejos el más visitado entre los administrados por Nupef. Fraternal regards Abraços fraternos Abrazos fraternales The Instituto Nupef team A equipe do Instituto Nupef El equipo del Instituto Nupef ----------------------------- http://www.nupef.org.br http://www.politics.org.br http://www.rets.org.br http://www.tiwa.org.br ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 07:06:53 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:36:53 -0430 Subject: [governance] RETS shuts down site in protest against SOPA/PIPA In-Reply-To: <4F16AFB1.8010205@cafonso.ca> References: <4F16AFB1.8010205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Diplo's page at www.diplomacy.edu shows/endorses the Civil Society statement written by IGC consensus, and the site is not available. 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 18 January 2012 07:10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > The online magazine "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, has shut down its > services in protest against SOPA-PIPA bills of law being considered by > the US Congress. The shut down started at 00:00 Brasília time and will > last for 24 hours today, January 18. The site's main page is still > visible after 40 seconds, but any attempt to visit any option will > return it to the protest page: > > http://www.rets.org.br > > We have chosen this Web site since it is by far the most visited among > the sites managed by Nupef. > > > Car*s amig*s, > > A "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, desativou o acesso a suas páginas > às 00:00 de hoje, 18 de janeiro, hora de Brasília, juntando-se ao > protesto mundial contra os projetos de lei SOPA e PIPA em trâmite no > Congresso dos EUA. A página inicial do portal ainda é visível depois de > 40 segundos, mas retorna à página de protesto em resposta ao clique em > qualquer opção da página. > > http://www.rets.org.br > > Escolhemos este sítio Web porque é de longe o mais visitado entre os > administrados pelo Nupef. > > > Estimad*s amig*s, > > La revista online "Revista do Terceiro Setor", RETS, ha desactivado el > acceso a sus páginas a las 00:00 de hoy, 18 de enero, hora de Brasilia, > para participar de la protesta mundial en contra de los proyectos de ley > SOPA y PIPA en trámite en el Congreso de los EEUU. La página inicial del > portal será visible en 40 segundos, pero retornará a la página de > protesta en respuesta a cualquier intento de visita a las opciones de la > página. > > http://www.rets.org.br > > Elegimos este sitio Web porque es de lejos el más visitado entre los > administrados por Nupef. > > Fraternal regards > Abraços fraternos > Abrazos fraternales > > The Instituto Nupef team > A equipe do Instituto Nupef > El equipo del Instituto Nupef > ----------------------------- > http://www.nupef.org.br > http://www.politics.org.br > http://www.rets.org.br > http://www.tiwa.org.br > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Jan 18 08:15:34 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:15:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC joins SOPA protest Message-ID: <4F16C5F6.4070408@apc.org> APC has joined today's internet blackout to protest arbitrary and unlawful interference with internet access that violates human rights. Our site will be in blackout for 24 hours from 1200 UTC Wednesday 18 January. We believe it is vital for people to articulate threats to human rights and freedoms from laws such as the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act that is going before the United States Congress. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ APC se une a la campaña de protesta internacional contra la interferencia ilícita y arbitraria con el acceso a internet que viola los derechos y las libertades en internet. Nuestro sitio web (http://www.apc.org) estará fuera de línea por 24 horas desde las 1200 UTC del miércoles 18 de enero. Creemos que es vital contrarrestar las amenazas a los derechos humanos y las libertades que presentan leyes como SOPA y PIPA. http://www.savetheinternet.com/ ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 09:53:24 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:53:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC joins SOPA protest In-Reply-To: <4F16C5F6.4070408@apc.org> References: <4F16C5F6.4070408@apc.org> Message-ID: The BBC is certainly paying attention http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16612628 Deirdre On 18 January 2012 09:15, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > APC has joined today's internet blackout to protest arbitrary and > unlawful interference with internet access that violates human rights. > Our site will be in blackout for 24 hours from 1200 UTC Wednesday 18 > January. We believe it is vital for people to articulate threats to > human rights and freedoms from laws such as the proposed Stop Online > Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act that is going before > the United States Congress. > http://www.savetheinternet.com/ > > APC se une a la campaña de protesta internacional contra la > interferencia ilícita y arbitraria con el acceso a internet que viola > los derechos y las libertades en internet. Nuestro sitio web > (http://www.apc.org) estará fuera de línea por 24 horas desde las 1200 > UTC del miércoles 18 de enero. Creemos que es vital contrarrestar las > amenazas a los derechos humanos y las libertades que presentan leyes > como SOPA y PIPA. > http://www.savetheinternet.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 09:55:12 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:55:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC joins SOPA protest In-Reply-To: References: <4F16C5F6.4070408@apc.org> Message-ID: As is Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/ Deirdre On 18 January 2012 10:53, Deirdre Williams wrote: > The BBC is certainly paying attention > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16612628 > Deirdre > > > On 18 January 2012 09:15, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> APC has joined today's internet blackout to protest arbitrary and >> unlawful interference with internet access that violates human rights. >> Our site will be in blackout for 24 hours from 1200 UTC Wednesday 18 >> January. We believe it is vital for people to articulate threats to >> human rights and freedoms from laws such as the proposed Stop Online >> Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act that is going before >> the United States Congress. >> http://www.savetheinternet.com/ >> >> APC se une a la campaña de protesta internacional contra la >> interferencia ilícita y arbitraria con el acceso a internet que viola >> los derechos y las libertades en internet. Nuestro sitio web >> (http://www.apc.org) estará fuera de línea por 24 horas desde las 1200 >> UTC del miércoles 18 de enero. Creemos que es vital contrarrestar las >> amenazas a los derechos humanos y las libertades que presentan leyes >> como SOPA y PIPA. >> http://www.savetheinternet.com/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “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.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 15:21:40 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:21:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Impact (so far) in DC of SOPA Blackout Message-ID: "The Hill" publication I'm linking to is, along with Roll Call, Politico and others, among the most viewed sources domestically in the USA for what's happening in Washington DC. Here is their blog on the impact, so far, of the SOPA blackout. I would say that overall the perception is of a big, even unprecedented, impact. By the way, for Daniel Kalchev's benefit, this issue is another example of property rights (IP) conflicting with human rights (free expression). Yes, humans can and do own property, but without the very large aggregations of property called corporations trying to singlemindedly expand their IP property values further, the real humans who are copyright owners and affected by piracy would never have had the desire, nor the collective political power, to get a bill drafted like SOPA and PIPA (a more reasonable bill, *perhaps* the real humans would have the power to get introduced) http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204749-websites-strike-to-protest-online-piracy-bills *The lead paragraphs *on THE HILL (with much more at the link, which I recommend reading if you have time) are: > "Congressional support for controversial online piracy legislation eroded > dramatically on Wednesday in the face of an unprecedented online protest > supported by tech titans such as Google, Wikipedia and Facebook. > > Several key senators withdrew their support from the Senate's Protect IP > Act, including Tea Party favorite Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Roy > Blunt (R-Mo.), an elected member of his party's leadership. > > Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), who leads the Senate GOP campaign team, and > Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, > also retreated from the bill." > http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204749-websites-strike-to-protest-online-piracy-bills > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 17:06:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:06:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] Message-ID: Dear All, We have sent emails to the various Secretariats of the Regional Internet Governance Forums to seek dates of when they will host their Regional IGFs. We would like to ensure that this is up on the IGC Website as well. We contacted the Secretariats based on the listing available via http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs . We were unable to get a hold of the Central African IGF organisers. If there are important things happening that you think should feature on the IGC Calendar please send us an email to inform us. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed Jan 18 18:12:16 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:12:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> If you have take down/blackout/banner your website for the protest, pls share the link with me. I would appreciated. : ) Thanks, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 18 19:39:37 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (nhklein) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:39:37 +0700 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F176649.7070004@gmx.net> On 01/19/2012 06:12 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > If you have take down/blackout/banner your website for the protest, > pls share the link with me. I would appreciated. : ) Thanks, Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing *http://www.thinking21.org *is now "down" Norbert Klein -- 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: On Law Enforcement (8 January 2012) http://www.thinking21.org/?p=682 Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net Phnom Penh / Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jan 18 19:56:58 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:56:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: <4F176649.7070004@gmx.net> References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org>,<4F176649.7070004@gmx.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B074AAE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The iSchool is down. http://ischool.syr.edu/temp/sopa/index.html Lee PS: My instant political analysis is the campaign is having impact; for example several -Republican- bill co-sponsors removed their names as backers of both the House and Senate bills after hearing from their constituents - and the tech industry. Still, supporting Senators and Congressmen will go through the motions as if they really want to push the bill through asap, and pretend they think they can do it. So we've gone from a real threat to political theater. Which is progress. The real play resumes in 2013 after the November elections. In my opinion. ________________________________ From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [governance at lists.cpsr.org] on behalf of nhklein [nhklein at gmx.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:39 PM To: Katitza Rodriguez Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest On 01/19/2012 06:12 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: If you have take down/blackout/banner your website for the protest, pls share the link with me. I would appreciated. : ) Thanks, Katitza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing http://www.thinking21.org is now "down" Norbert Klein -- 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: On Law Enforcement (8 January 2012) http://www.thinking21.org/?p=682 Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net Phnom Penh / Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Wed Jan 18 23:49:13 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:49:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] When "human rights" are judiciable Message-ID: Dear all, I've just gleaned from the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/business/global/hedge-funds-may-sue-greece-if-it-tries-to-force-loss.html?ref=global-home that hedge funds may take Greece to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that their property rights have been violated. Apparently Greece is planning what is called a "haircut" of its debt: Greece would default partially and the loss spread among the bond-holders. The European Central Bank holds 50 billion or so bonds, which it took on as part of previous attempts to keep Greece afloat. These bonds would not be subject to the "haircut", a measure which may be necessary in order for the ECB to continue playing its role of "lender of last resort". The case is particularly difficult, for it pits a clear and immediate private loss against a "danger to the system" - whose entity cannot be evaluated, even lass quantified in advance. Whatever the merits of the case such legal entanglements might delay the orderly execution of the salvage operation and even precipitate the crisis we intended to avoid. The analogy would be that, on the sinking Titanic, men would threaten to appeal to the ECHR because their right to life had been shorted when "women and children first" was proclaimed as the order of evacuation. When abstract rights hit the judicial fan, legal difficulties are spread over a large area, even creating even legal fog so impenetrable as to make progress more difficult for those whose aim is to move forward rapidly. By their very (alleged) nature "fundamental and transcendent human rights" rights are incommensurable. Yet a balance has to be struck, in a specific time and context. What is the proper balance between "freedom of speech" and "ordre public"? Moving to economic and social rights, balancing inevitably faces the "wailing wall of scarcity". And what would be appropariate means of redress? Compensation? Return to the status quo ante? Meting out justice may be difficult when appropriate means of redress fail or are too coarse to satisfy the blindfolded lady. Such "balancing" may take place in a court of law - with its obligation to "due process" and respect for precedent. In human rights, such precedent is scant, given the legal history, so each decision is precedent, which would make the court even more cautious. It is a ponderous process, slow, and one likely to create much collateral damage to parties who only have an indirect interest in the outcome. Impartiality of the legal system trumps political legitimacy - hence the complex and indirect system of chosing the judges. Many frowm upon delegating such vital matters to the idiosyncrasies of a handful of judges. Such "balancing" may take place within the political process - it lacks transparency, and is chronically prone to power politics. The choice between these venues is itself a political issue. Last year, exemplary punisment was meted out to a man who man who had committed grievous family violence in Zurich. The victims openly and violently expressed their disagreement with the result. Why? They had to live with the consequences - and one of them was effectively "court-ordered divorce". A judgement may be akin to surgery - always painful, sometimes effective, and in any case destructive of the integrity of the system. Asian civilisation made the cultural choice not to use surgery, which has been a Western tradition since paleolithic times. In the ongoing discussion over "human rights" I offer these lines as basis for reflection, not as resolution of the quandary. There is none, and the binary trope right/wrong, the claim that we can ascertain "the truth" is to me a dangerous delusion. We may be too quick of the draw of the legal pistol. Again, this is a cultural trait. The Greek system of battle pitted falanx against falanx in an clash lasting at most a day. The battlefield was the unique and ultimate judge of the quarrel. The hoplites were farmers and, for good or bad, they had to go back to tending their fields. Aldo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 03:13:29 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:13:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Obama spikes SOPA Message-ID: Obama Says So Long SOPA, Killing Controversial Internet Piracy LegislationThe growing anti-SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) support that has swept through the gaming and Internet community found a very big ally today. With websites like Reddit and Wikipedia and gaming organizations like Major League Gamingprepared for a blackout on January 18 th – the same day that the House Judiciary Committee hearing on HR 3261was scheduled in Washington , DC – President Barack Obama has stepped in and said he would not support the bill. SOPA has been delayed, for now. The House has agreed to revisit the issue next month, but they now know the White House will veto any bill that’s not more narrowly focused. READ MORE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/ -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From judyokite at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 05:06:20 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:06:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Sala, hope that you are well and thank you, for all your efforts. Mr. Baudouin Schombe Contact:- b.schombe at gmail.com or baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net are one of the key, persons, in the organisation and cordination of Central Africa IGF. Copied, him on the email as well. Kind Regards, “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” Kofi Annan On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We have sent emails to the various Secretariats of the Regional Internet > Governance Forums to seek dates of when they will host their Regional IGFs. > We would like to ensure that this is up on the IGC Website as well. We > contacted the Secretariats based on the listing available via > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs . > > We were unable to get a hold of the Central African IGF organisers. If > there are important things happening that you think should feature on the > IGC Calendar please send us an email to inform us. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 05:57:12 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:27:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Kati, Yesterday, Diplo had a 'home page' which displayed the IGC press statement on a black background. I did not keep a screen shot. Normally, Diplo stays away from any kind of advocacy activities. However, there are a few core points that we must support, and yesterday's blackout embodied most of them. Thanks to the IGC, EFF and everyone for their energy. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 18 January 2012 18:42, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > If you have take down/blackout/banner your website for the protest, pls > share the link with me. I would appreciated. : ) Thanks, Katitza > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Thu Jan 19 06:31:09 2012 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:31:09 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> ,<7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <03df01ccd69d$d7946d20$86bd4760$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> FYI http://www.forbes.com/sites/ieeeinsights/2012/01/18/the-role-of-technology-i n-taking-a-stand/ Lorena Jaume-Palasí ___________________________________________ Department of political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer) Geschwister Scholl Institute for Political Sciences. Ludwig Maximilians University Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] Im Auftrag von Brice Abba Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Januar 2012 00:35 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com Betreff: RE: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) Daniel, +1 :) _____ From: daniel at digsys.bg Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:25:37 +0200 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: Question: Why would humans understand and support property rights on the Internet, but not understand or support human rights on the Internet? Answer: Businesses pay humans to advocate for business property rights, and to steer clear of advocating for human rights on the Internet except where absolutely necessary or supportive of the business' bottom line. Take away the voices (in our imagination) of those on the payroll of various businesses, and there would be every bit, if not more, acceptance of human rights on the Internet as there presently is for property rights on the Internet. I am still confused by all this. Perhaps it is some "western" type of thinking, but it just does not make sense to me. The same thing as when you argued about corporations being evil. Property rights is one of the human rights. How could property rights be against other human rights? If it is a matter of balance, or rather a need for humans to exist, then one can say for sure, that humans can exist without Internet. They can also exist without property. They can for some time to survive even without food, or water. I believe humans will survive least without air to breathe My "fear" of declaring "access to Internet" is centered towards the abuse we see every day with regards to "human rights". Many are killed daily, in the name of "human rights". Countries are being invaded and drawn to war in the name of "human rights" . to name few. Of course, everyone has the right to access the Internet. Call it human right or not.. it is just a choice of wording. In another language, in another culture it might mean something else. Even in the same language/culture it might mean something else with a different Government. We have seen this all the time. But in order to access the Internet, it has to be accessible to everyone. That means less regulation. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 19 06:32:48 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:32:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi, I must say, especially given my original skepticism that such a protest could work, that I am extremely impressed by how well it worked. While we cannot expect any such result to hold for very long it really appears that the US congress is backing down on SOPA/PIPA for the moment. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1 avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 06:40:16 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:10:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> Message-ID: Hello Katiza 1. Internet Society India Chennai website was blocked out for a few hours http://isocindiachennai.org/?p=712 2. Also blocked out http://internetstudio.in using a Word Press Plugin from http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/sopa-blackout-plugin/ Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a http://internetstudio.in/ On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I must say, especially given my original skepticism that such a protest > could work, that I am extremely impressed by how well it worked. While we > cannot expect any such result to hold for very long it really appears that > the US congress is backing down on SOPA/PIPA for the moment. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1 > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 06:44:34 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:44:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? Message-ID: http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/are-intellectual-property-rights-human-rights-2/ and don't get your blood-pressure up it's just a way to think differently about an age-old issue have fun :))) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Jan 19 07:02:05 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:32:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F18063D.7030009@cis-india.org> Aldo Matteucci [2012-01-19 17:14]: > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/are-intellectual-property-rights-human-rights-2/ Apart from the United States' Constitution, which applies to a single country, you might wish to look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well, specifically Article 27[udhr27]: (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. [udhr27]: http://goo.gl/zk3cO Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pouzin at well.com Thu Jan 19 07:14:22 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:14:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: <03df01ccd69d$d7946d20$86bd4760$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> <03df01ccd69d$d7946d20$86bd4760$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Hi, This article is trying to correct the mixed reactions to the one in the NYT. - - - On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:31, Lorena Jaume-Palasi < Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote: > FYI**** > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/ieeeinsights/2012/01/18/the-role-of-technology-in-taking-a-stand/ > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí**** > > ___________________________________________**** > > ** ** > > Department of political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)**** > > Geschwister Scholl Institute for Political Sciences.**** > > Ludwig Maximilians University**** > > ** ** > -------------- 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 judyokite at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 07:23:18 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:23:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cerfing the Web, or Serfing the Web? (Understanding Google's Internet Evangelism against Internet Access Rights) In-Reply-To: References: <4F152711.8000900@itforchange.net> <7521A6DD-2DDD-4451-90F9-140046D4414E@digsys.bg> <03df01ccd69d$d7946d20$86bd4760$@gsi.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Did anyone see the one on Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/ Kind Regards, “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” Kofi Annan On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > This article is trying to correct the mixed reactions to the one in the > NYT. > - - - > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:31, Lorena Jaume-Palasi < > Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de> wrote: > >> FYI**** >> >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ieeeinsights/2012/01/18/the-role-of-technology-in-taking-a-stand/ >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Lorena Jaume-Palasí**** >> >> ___________________________________________**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Department of political Theory (Prof. Dr. Karsten Fischer)**** >> >> Geschwister Scholl Institute for Political Sciences.**** >> >> Ludwig Maximilians University**** >> >> ** ** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 08:19:00 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:19:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps the right 'to think differently about an age-old issue' is currently one of the most endangered of human rights? :-) Really an extremely un-funny idea. Deirdre On 19 January 2012 07:44, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/are-intellectual-property-rights-human-rights-2/ > > and don't get your blood-pressure up > it's just a way to think differently about an age-old issue > have fun :))) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 12:06:50 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:06:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, I am so distressed to see that the IGF website / Central Africa ( www.fgiac.org) is rendered unusable. It was set up and managed by Philemon Kissanguo of Congo Brazzaville. I can only send you the report of the 2011 IGF in Central Africa. For the year 2012, this meeting will be held in Cameroon. I contact Philemon in an emergency and I would like inform you later. Baudouin 2012/1/19 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Thanks Judy. Badouin, grateful if you could advise us of the dates for > your regional IGF. > > Kind Regards, > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Judy Okite wrote: > >> Hello Sala, >> >> hope that you are well and thank you, for all your efforts. >> >> Mr. Baudouin Schombe >> Contact:- b.schombe at gmail.com or baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net are one >> of the key, persons, in the organisation and cordination of Central Africa >> IGF. >> >> Copied, him on the email as well. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and >> what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” >> Kofi Annan >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We have sent emails to the various Secretariats of the Regional Internet >>> Governance Forums to seek dates of when they will host their Regional IGFs. >>> We would like to ensure that this is up on the IGC Website as well. We >>> contacted the Secretariats based on the listing available via >>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs . >>> >>> We were unable to get a hold of the Central African IGF organisers. If >>> there are important things happening that you think should feature on the >>> IGC Calendar please send us an email to inform us. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rapport FGIAC2011 .doc Type: application/msword Size: 39424 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 14:07:01 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:07:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1869D5.5070905@gmail.com> Endangered? Not quite. Health and the FOSS movement have made significant contributions. Let me be provocative. What is missing is mass based support for these issues in the rich countries. The Pirate Party at least represents a start, if symbolic for now, but it does set up a serious political dialectic. How many people stood by as the DNS system was rendered "competent" for copyright "claims" - most everyone official including WIPO with its arbitral tribunals on cyber squatting. What was missing was vigilence. And if you give rentiers a hand they are likely to take an arm and a leg thrown in for good measure - who can resist extensive monopoly power. This is an issue that is coming full circle. It is amazing, in health developing countries have legal rights to copy medicines for HIV (or anything for that matter) but cannot do so because of US Super 301 legislation. Oh, in a crisis Greece can cut pharma prices, Italy can issue Compulsory Licenses, but let a developing country try that and all hell breaks loose. Authors rights, by rich country fiat, trump the right to health and the right to life. What is a treatable condition in the first world is a death sentence in the third. So much for deference for human rights. They are valuable but susceptible to parochial interpretation by rich countries, and not least by third world rulers. Even this whole "stealing jobs" issue in the rich countries particularly in high-tech sectors is linked to the globalisation of protection and enforcement of IPRs (instead of territorial specificity without 'most favoured nation' and 'national treatment'). Looking at the value chain, it is not that developing countries do not benefit, but in some cases it is limited (maquiladoras after NAFTA, or horrible conditions in Special Economic Zones or enclavity). Transnational corporations do benefit, especially because they can rig transfer payments and vary royalty payments (IPR contracts can be as opaque as derivative contracts, and that IPR accounting treatment is where tax haven competition is at) and the rights holders payments are rather mobile (so taxes can be limited and profits also wiped out by changing rates). Hardly any point in not going where the greatest accounting opacity is if you want to maximise profits. And if you are serious about innovation then a country like the US even allows profit repatriation on a tax holiday basis... a real bounty. Somehow rich country citizens (of course many are disempowered by low intensity democracy and/or false choices) thought that these kinds of forces could be strengthened to kick butt elsewhere and that they would remain loyal to the nation... ? On 2012/01/19 03:19 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Perhaps the right 'to think differently about an age-old issue' is > currently one of the most endangered of human rights? :-) > Really an extremely un-funny idea. > Deirdre > > On 19 January 2012 07:44, Aldo Matteucci > wrote: > > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/are-intellectual-property-rights-human-rights-2/ > and don't get your blood-pressure up > it's just a way to think differently about an age-old issue > have fun :))) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jan 19 14:55:39 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:55:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Lee McKnight has forwarded a page to you from FierceTelecom In-Reply-To: <20120119193706.56E7D11787EF@277390-web1.fiercemarkets.com> References: <20120119193706.56E7D11787EF@277390-web1.fiercemarkets.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B074FFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, This caught my eye....see below. India's Reliance Telecom I thought had cleverly bought up FLAG cheap following the Internet bubble...but the present economic crisis has forced them to sell apparently. This network is one of the core undersea backbones for international Internet traffic, to Africa, Middle East and Asia if I recall their reach correctly. And IPO priced at - a bargain $1bn - $2bn. My suggestion: some rich foundation or aggregation of cs groups...should buy a chunk of this, for international cs use. Or, any of you in the 1%, just play the IPO game yourselves and donate to...IGC? ; ) Tim will manage it for us so we're good to go day one. Hey, I can dream... Lee ________________________________ From: noreply at fiercetelecom.com [noreply at fiercetelecom.com] on behalf of lmcknigh at syr.edu [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:37 PM To: Lee W McKnight Subject: Lee McKnight has forwarded a page to you from FierceTelecom [FierceTelecom]FierceTelecom Lee McKnight thought you would like to see this page from the FierceTelecom web site. Message from Sender: FYI, Reliance bought low and is selling high(er)...it would be great if some NGOs bought a chunk of this cable for - global cs use. Hey I can dream. Report: Reliance Globalcom could sell stake in its FLAG cable system Reliance Communications is looking for ways to raise some cash and it believes that by selling a big stake of its Flag Telecom cable system it could raise up to $1.5 billion, reports Bloomberg. Click here to read more on our site -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jan 19 15:14:18 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:14:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Lee McKnight has forwarded a page to you from FierceTelecom In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B074FFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120119193706.56E7D11787EF@277390-web1.fiercemarkets.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B074FFC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: at 19:55:39 on Thu, 19 Jan 2012, Lee W McKnight writes >India's Reliance Telecom I thought had cleverly bought up FLAG cheap >following the Internet bubble...but the present economic crisis has >forced them to sell apparently. So perhaps owning an international carrier isn't a licence to print money, after all. But if they can sell it for a billion dollars, that's more than the two hundred million they paid, but how much have they sunk into it the last seven years? -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 16:15:02 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:15:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: <4F1869D5.5070905@gmail.com> References: <4F1869D5.5070905@gmail.com> Message-ID: WIPO published a Report on Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues which you can access via http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/ The report contains the following:- - Introduction - I. The Internet and the Development of the Digital Society - II. The Migration of Intellectual Property to the Internet - III. The Impact of the Internet on Intellectual Property Law - - (A)Copyright and Related Rights - (B)Trademarks and Other Rights in Distinctive Signs - (C)Domain Names - (D)Patents - IV. The Role of Private International Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution - V. Issues for Developing Countries in the Digital Environment - VI. Digital Delivery of Intellectual Property Services - VII. The WIPO Digital Agenda -------------- 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 katitza at eff.org Thu Jan 19 16:20:12 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:20:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: References: <4F1869D5.5070905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F18890C.3070607@eff.org> Hey all: Thank you to everyone who replied to my messages. Here is the article Internet blackout day fires up digital rights activism around the world https://t.co/jAXHi85y #sopa #acta #leydoring #netfreedom ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 19 16:46:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:46:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] SOPA/PIPA protest In-Reply-To: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> References: <4F1751D0.4060102@eff.org> Message-ID: Dear Katitza, I started making people aware in Pakistan as soon as I had found out about SOPA.... I produced two different articles and made a public comment during the Pakistan Blog Awards Blogocracy Conference/Workshop in Lahore in front of the blogger community in the city earlier. I also led a twitter campaign and you may view my twitter account displaying SOPA on my avatar mouth as censorship protest: My twitter: www.twitter.com/fouadbajwa The strike and articles are on internetsgovernance.blogspot.com : SOPA Strike - Web Goes on Strike http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2012/01/sopa-strike-web-goes-on-strike.html SOPA Stop Online Piracy Act will be killing the Internet and the world's largest Social and Cultural Revolution http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/2011/12/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-will-be.html The video of the Blogocracy Panel where I mention these issues (but both in Urdu and English mixed) at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12tDlHLMCU -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > If you have take down/blackout/banner your website for the protest, pls > share the link with me. I would appreciated. : ) Thanks, Katitza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 03:24:03 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:24:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload Message-ID: <4F1924A3.9080504@gmail.com> [First they came for those with HIV, and I said nothing... then they came for me...] U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload AP http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2815112.ece One of the world's largest file-sharing sites was shut down on Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said. An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy. The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested on Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large. Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. Before the website was taken down, it contained endorsements from Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West, among others. Before the site was taken down, it posted a statement saying allegations that it facilitated massive breaches of copyright laws were "grotesquely overblown." "The fact is that the vast majority of Mega's Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch," the statement said. A lawyer who represented the company in a lawsuit last year declined comment on Thursday. Megaupload is considered a "cyberlocker," in which users can upload and transfer files that are too large to send by email. Such sites can have perfectly legitimate uses. But the Motion Picture Association of America, which has campaigned for a crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast majority of content being shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright laws. The website allowed users to download films, TV shows, games, music and other content for free, but made money by charging subscriptions to people who wanted access to faster download speeds or extra content. The website also sold advertising. The indictment was returned in the Eastern District of Virginia, which claimed jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged pirated materials were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Virginia. Keywords: Megaupload , anti-piracy laws , Internet censorship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Jan 20 21:56:22 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:56:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Report for donations for our Website operation Message-ID: Dear list, I have the pleasure to report that the following members have contributed 10 euros each as contribution for our web-site operation, taking the opportunity of ftf meeting at the last CSTD WG meeting in Geneva. ParminderJeet Singh, Wolfgang Kleinwächter and William Drake. As I have also reported earlier, I have handed $200 to Jeremy. Now that we have PayPal, I ask you to consider Maximum of $10 or 10 Euros per individual for the contribution. Please do not send too much now ;-) We need only 20 people. Thank you, 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 Jan 26 08:07:20 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:07:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG and CSTD WG meetings Message-ID: 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk Tue Jan 31 12:09:56 2012 From: J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk (Cave, Jonathan) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:09:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: <88qv1fwf8jwbcqc07ltlrrjy.1328029505633@email.android.com> Because they can. And not just US government (ACTA, anyone?) - does it matter whether the justification is terrorism or IPR? In my view, it only matters if tests of proportionality and efficacy can be applied, and passed. None of the govenments falling ove themselves to ratify ACTA seem too concerned about either. Sent from Samsung tablet Kerry Brown wrote: I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk Tue Jan 31 17:57:38 2012 From: J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk (Cave, Jonathan) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:57:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: I respectfully disagree. Security resources are scarce and detection is stochastic, so the duty of homeland security is to prioritise sources and signals according to relevance and significance. This jumping at shadows (or tough-guy posturing) is, in my view, a waste of resources that brings the security strategy into disrepute. It is therefore a dereliction of duty, to borrow your phrase. TIA is an urban myth, and a counterproductive one at that. IMHO, of course:-) Sent from Samsung tablet Pranesh Prakash wrote: Kerry Brown [2012-01-31 22:23]: > Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Because most people would, and very rightly so, accuse them of laxity and dereliction of duty if they didn't. I have not seen a single cogent argument as to why they should not.  If it is the duty of the immigration officers to prevent untoward foreigners from entering the country, then they should use all public information at their disposal, at the very least, to come to that conclusion. It is another matter whether Twitter banter should form the basis of their opinions, but then you don't seem to be interested in that question. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Tue Jan 31 12:04:36 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:04:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: Because they can. ACTA? Sent from Samsung tablet Kerry Brown wrote: I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Tue Jan 31 11:34:18 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:34:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: Probably I will regret replying, but "fire in a crowded theatre" is directly harmful to others, as is hate speech urging violence, etc. The proscribed tweets pose no such threat. Announcing an intention to destroy America seems to me like a hungry Brit late on a Saturday night saying "I could murder an Indian" (meaning "I would rally like to eat a curry"), which is clearly understood by all to whom it was addressed. Moreover, there is no conceiveable terrorist agenda that could be advanced by the tweet eithout the homeland security overreaction. Agent provocateur?  Otherwise, almost any utterance could be legitimately construed as a coded reference to terrotism, or a cue for coordinating a plot. Wouldn't it be odd if the intepretation of a tweet were somehow linked to the nationality, ethnicity, religion, wealth, etc. of the tweeter? Or if the tweets of Americans were screened for threats of economic attack on Europe? Nahh... Couldn't happen. Sent from Samsung tablet 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 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jan 19 19:24:52 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:24:52 +0800 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK Message-ID: I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: governance at lists.igcaucus.org The new web interface for the mailing list is: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. -- 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 ocl at gih.com Thu Jan 19 19:34:18 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:34:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F18B68A.3020601@gih.com> Congratulations: it's running on IPv6 too. An excellent lead by example! Kind regards, Olivier On 20/01/2012 01:24, Jeremy Malcolm wrote : > I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now > finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as > before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > The new web interface for the mailing list is: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible > exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once > traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that > we didn't have before that we do have now, like password > synchronisation between our website and mailing list. > > The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, > and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the > techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, > Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over > in situ with minimal tweaking. > > If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can > contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email > address, coordinators at igcaucus.org . > If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use > Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is > understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do > too). > > I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything > rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. > > -- > > *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 _ at 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. > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jan 19 20:14:04 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:14:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: <4F18B68A.3020601@gih.com> References: <4F18B68A.3020601@gih.com> Message-ID: Yeah but i had to get my arm twisted (politely and nicely)_ in order to go twist the registrars' arms (politely and nicely) so that something could be cobbled together using a beta setup they had. almost makes me queasy, the first time i ever had a AAAA record attached to a domain name. but seriously the work Jeremy has done in this process is quite impressive and we owe him a collective giant thanks. thanks avri On 19 Jan 2012, at 19:34, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Congratulations: it's running on IPv6 too. An excellent lead by example! > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 20/01/2012 01:24, Jeremy Malcolm wrote : >> I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> The new web interface for the mailing list is: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. >> >> The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. >> >> If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). >> >> I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 20:33:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:33:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy for the tremendous work and continued technical assistance. Best Regards, Izumi and Sala On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally > been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new > email address to send mail to the list is: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > The new web interface for the mailing list is: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception > of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old > list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before > that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and > mailing list. > > The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and > all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, > it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and > OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with > minimal tweaking. > > If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can > contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, > coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the > hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too > (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with > Paypal, as I do too). > > I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything > rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. > > -- > > *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 > > -- 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Thu Jan 19 22:48:23 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:18:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: <4F18B68A.3020601@gih.com> Message-ID: <4F18E407.50404@ITforChange.net> Thanks Jeremy! Congratulations IGC! regards Guru > > Yeah but i had to get my arm twisted (politely and nicely)_ > in order to go twist the registrars' arms (politely and nicely) > so that something could be cobbled together using a beta setup they had. > > almost makes me queasy, > the first time i ever had a AAAA record attached to a domain name. > > but seriously the work Jeremy has done in this process is quite impressive and we owe him a collective giant thanks. > > thanks > > avri > > > > On 19 Jan 2012, at 19:34, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> Congratulations: it's running on IPv6 too. An excellent lead by example! >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 20/01/2012 01:24, Jeremy Malcolm wrote : >>> I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> The new web interface for the mailing list is: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. >>> >>> The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. >>> >>> If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). >>> >>> I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani at isd-rc.org Fri Jan 20 02:00:53 2012 From: kabani at isd-rc.org (Asif Kabani) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:00:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations: IGC and Thank you Jeremy for the efforts Good to hear that its running on IPv6 too. excellent Thanks & Regards Asif Kabani On 20 January 2012 05:24, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally > been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new > email address to send mail to the list is: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > The new web interface for the mailing list is: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception > of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old > list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before > that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and > mailing list. > > The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and > all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, > it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and > OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with > minimal tweaking. > > If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can > contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, > coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the > hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too > (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with > Paypal, as I do too). > > I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything > rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. > > -- > > *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 > > -- Asif Kabani Email: kabani.asif at gmail.com “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jan 20 02:48:09 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:48:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002b01ccd747$daaea430$900bec90$@planet.tn> Thank you very much Jeremy. Impressive work indeed. ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Jeremy Malcolm Envoyé : vendredi 20 janvier 2012 01:25 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: governance at lists.igcaucus.org The new web interface for the mailing list is: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. -- 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. _____ 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 antoinekantiza at hotmail.com Fri Jan 20 06:58:05 2012 From: antoinekantiza at hotmail.com (ANTOINE KANTIZA) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:58:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Be blessed by peoples from all over the world and by God Himself for your endeavour and your good job done in fine for safe Internet Governance. Have a good time Prof. Antoine KANTIZA, Master UTICEF,- Webmaster à la Radio-Télévision Nationale du Burundi http://www.burundi-quotidien.net & http://www.rtnb.bi/ Représentant légal de l'ASBL PLEAD " PROMOTION DE L'EDUCATION A DISTANCE" Skype ID: antoine.kantiza Twitter ID: antoinekantiza at twitter.com http://promotioneducationdistance.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/antoine-kantiza/25/603/446 From: jeremy at ciroap.org Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:24:52 +0800 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: governance at lists.igcaucus.org The new web interface for the mailing list is: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. -- 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 1599The 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 07:06:18 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:06:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Jeremy Deirdre On 19 January 2012 20:24, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally > been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new > email address to send mail to the list is: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > The new web interface for the mailing list is: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception > of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old > list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before > that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and > mailing list. > > The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and > all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, > it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and > OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with > minimal tweaking. > > If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can > contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, > coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the > hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too > (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with > Paypal, as I do too). > > I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything > rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. > > -- > > *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 > > -- “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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Fri Jan 20 07:17:56 2012 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:17:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] thanks Message-ID: Congratulations and thank you! Divina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 09:40:31 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:40:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wonderfull, very nice SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/1/20 Jeremy Malcolm > I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally > been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new > email address to send mail to the list is: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > The new web interface for the mailing list is: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception > of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old > list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before > that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and > mailing list. > > The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and > all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, > it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and > OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with > minimal tweaking. > > If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can > contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, > coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the > hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too > (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with > Paypal, as I do too). > > I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything > rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. > > -- > > *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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Fri Jan 20 10:39:20 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:39:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: +1 Naveed-ul-Haq From: b.schombe at gmail.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:40:31 +0100 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; jeremy at ciroap.org Subject: Re: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK Wonderfull, very nice SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/1/20 Jeremy Malcolm I'm pleased to announce that the governance mailing list has now finally been moved onto our own server. It operates exactly as before. The new email address to send mail to the list is: governance at lists.igcaucus.org The new web interface for the mailing list is: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance All the archives from the old list are there (with the possible exception of a few of the latest ones, which I'll move over once traffic on the old list stops). There are even a few functions that we didn't have before that we do have now, like password synchronisation between our website and mailing list. The new server has been under testing for about the last two weeks, and all the initial problems seem to have been resolved now. For the techies, it is a Xen-based virtual server running Ubuntu 11.10, Nginx, Sympa and OpenLDAP, with all of our old web files simply copied over in situ with minimal tweaking. If someone wants to help with administration of the server, they can contact the coordinators who (for the first time!) have an email address, coordinators at igcaucus.org. If someone wants to donate to offset the hosting costs, they can use Paypal to send money to that email address too (though it is understood that some people have ethical problems with Paypal, as I do too). I don't think you'll experience any problems as I've tested everything rather thoroughly before switching over, but if you do, let me know. -- 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 1599The 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jan 20 12:19:14 2012 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:19:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP: 6th IEEE Inter. Conf. on Digital Ecosystems Technologies - Complex Environment Engineering (IEEE DEST-CEE 2012) Message-ID: <034b01ccd797$a24f6ed0$e6ee4c70$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] *********************************************************************** 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems Technologies - Complex Environment Engineering IEEE DEST-CEE 2012 18-20 June 2012 - Campione d'Italia, Italy http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/DEST2012/ *********************************************************************** Call for Papers In our Digital Age, strong development of digital network infrastructure has dominated our service delivery, economic growth and life style. Future applications in domains such as Healthcare/Health-Science, Energy, Social Networks and Logistics demand infrastructures that are more agile than those operated currently. Digital Ecosystems aim to capture the notion of such agile and adaptive infrastructures. Digital Ecosystem Technologies encompass the advent of the whole spectrum of Internet technologies, starting from the hyperlinked web towards pervasive internet applications, from Peer-to-Peer systems to Grid middleware, followed by Cloud Services, Agent technologies, Sensor Networks and Cyber- Physical systems, which has become a major theme for business process digitalization. Digital Ecosystems inherit concepts of open, loosely coupled, demand-driven, domain clustered, agent-based self-organized collaborative environments where species/agents form a temporary coalition (or longer term) for a specific purpose or goals. Within this environment everyone is proactive and responsive for their own benefit or profit. The essence of digital ecosystems is the adoption of ecological system concepts, and creating value by making connections through collective intelligence and promoting collaboration instead of unbridled competition and ICT-based catalyst effects in a number of domains, to produce networked enriched communities and solutions. Today's global challenges such as in Energy and Sustainability, Healthcare and an Aging Society, Public Safety and Security, or Democracy and Participation/Involvement confront us with the most Complex Environments. Traditional ICT-support has often increased complexity, thus making the challenges even more severe. The Digital Ecosystem perspective aims to address the twofold challenge of Complex Environment Engineering and Digital Ecosystem Technology mapping. The complexity of both the challenges and the technological solutions has to be acknowledged. IEEE DEST-CEE is jointly conducted with IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 SIMPDA (International Symposium on Data Driven Process Discovery and Analysis, http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2012). This acknowledges the key role of business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis for Digital Ecosystems, and vice versa. Further, the Innovation Adoption Forum underpins the importance of public-private partnership as the key for delivering sustainable solutions for our Complex Living and Business Environment û and thus our Digital Ecosystem Habitat. Our Keynotes, Panels and Sessions will tackle the multifaceted challenges and solutions from various stakeholders’ perspectives. This call for papers and additional information about the conference can be found at http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/DEST2012/. For information regarding the conference you may contact: fulvio.frati at unimi.it. IMPORTANT DATES Submission of Full Papers: 15 March 2012 Notification of Acceptance: 19 April 2012 Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 21 May 2012 Conference: 18 - 20 June 2012 CONFERENCE GENERAL CHAIRS - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Achim P. Karduck, Furtwangen University, Germany TECHNICAL PROGRAMME CHAIRS - Elizabeth Chang, DEBII, Curtin University, Perth, Australia - Mark Hedges, Centre for e-Research, Kings College, UK PUBLICITY CHAIR - Matthew Smith, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany REGIONAL AREA CHAIRS - Moataz A. Ahmed, KFUPM, Saudi Arabia - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Ralph Deters, University of Saskatchewan, Canada - Christian Guetl, Graz University of Technology, Austria - Farookh Hussain, Curtin University, Perth, Australia - Jie Liu, Fudan University, Shanghai, China INNOVATION ADOPTION CHAIRS - Achim P. Karduck, Furtwangen University, Germany - O. Sinan Tumer, SAP Research, US WEB CHAIR - Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy CHAIR OF ADVISORY BOARD - Tharam Dillon, Chair IEEE TC-II INTERN. ADVISORY BOARD - Michael Brodie, Verizon, USA - Armando Colombo, Schneider Electric, Germany - Leopoldo G Franquelo, President IEEE IES - Kouhei Ohnishi, Ex. President IEEE-IES - Wolfgang Prinz, Fraunhofer FIT, Germany - Csaba A. Szabo, Budapest University, Hungary - Sirin Teriknay, Ozyegin University, Turkey - O.Sinan Tumer, SAP Research, Germany - Bogdan Wilamowski, Editor-in-Chief for IEEE TIE - Xinghuo Yu, IEEE IES AdCOM PAPER SUBMISSION Papers are to be original works, up to 6 pages in length, and will be peer reviewed by at least 3 independent reviewers from the international Programme Committee. Papers submitted for this conference must be formatted to fit on A4 paper in a two-column format. The author should use a word processor or desktop publishing system to produce a "camera ready" paper on A4 paper. The exact formatting instructions can be found on the website. Before submitting your paper submission, please ensure that it has been converted to a PDF using IEEE’s requirements. The papers submission system for IEEE DEST-CEE 2012 can be found at https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ieeedestcee2012. CONFERENCE VENUE All conference activities will take place in the municipal casino of Campione d'Italia. From Milan Campione can be reached by car following the A9 motorway MILANOCHIASSO and then the A2 motorway CHIASSO- LUGANO, exit at Bissone Melide. A bus leaves from Garibaldi square (the square before the Garibaldi railway station) Dep. time from Milano 15.00/20:30- Dep. from Campione 19:00/00:30/3.00. From Malpensa Airport Campione can be reached by car or shuttle in approximately 50 minutes. >From Lugano Campione can be reached by boat, bus and car and although you have to cross the Swiss-Italian border line to reach it there are no formal border controls. Campione is approximately 20 minutes from Lugano by road, and 15 minutes by boat across the lake. A ferry service runs regularly from Lugano to Campione throughout the day. Bus timetable are available on the SBB web site. More info on: www.campioneitalia.com CONFERENCE TRACKS * Area I: Foundations and Technologies Area I deals with the basic ICT foundations of digital ecosystems, including large-scale, virtualized infrastructures, hosting ecosystem services and processes. Ecosystems require a novel approach to ICT technology development, closely related to the engineering of complex systems. Area I includes two one-day tracks that feature contributions on how the technological support for digital ecosystems is emerging. Track A: Foundations of Digital Ecosystems and Complex Environment Engineering Track co-Chairs: - Pierpaolo Andriani, Euromed Management School, France - Pierfranco Ferronato, Soluta.net, Italy - Gabriele Gianini, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Track A addresses the foundations of Digital Ecosystems in the context of Complex Environments Engineering. A digital ecosystem is defined as an open, loosely coupled, demand-driven, domain clustered, agent -based self organized environment where species/agents form short and long-term coalitions for specific purposes or goals, and everyone is proactive and responsive for its own benefit or profit. Interactions among peers in Digital Ecosystems may involve, besides unbridled competition, new modalities of pre-competitive and collaborative partnerships . Digital ecosystems are characterized by complexity – demanding radically new solutions. This track focuses on the theoretical foundations, that can be drawn upon form various disciplines. The focus of Track A is on, but is not limited to: - Models for Digital Ecosystems and Complex Environments - Economic and Value Models for Digital Ecosystems - Techniques for Coordination, Availability and Resource Allocation - Ontologies for service and data semantics Track B: Technology Infrastructure for Digital Ecosystems Track co-Chairs: - Lionel Brunie, INSA-Lyon, France - Harald Kosch, University of Passau, Germany The ICT infrastructure underlying digital ecosystem must ensure the basis for digital ecosystems' economic operation. Track B will include contributions on how the ICT infrastructure can enable Digital Ecosystems by providing the required connectivity, mobility, availability, and security solutions. Typically, members of an ecosystem employ technological agents to procure products and access services on their behalf in order to achieve collective and individual goals. The ICT infrastructure needs to provide solution ensuring that the ecosystem's resources are available as and when they are legitimately needed, protecting confidential information from loss and avoiding corruption of information. The focus of Track B is on, but not limited to: - Knowledge representation and management in Digital Ecosystems - Secure Information Exchange in Digital Ecosystems - Models and Technologies for Human-Space Computing - Processes and Services in Cyber-Physical Systems - Collaborative Systems * Area II: Sustainable Domain Solutions Area II presents contributions in various application domains, organized in half-day tracks. Just as the development of Smart Grids required the convergence of energy and information system infrastructures, radically new approaches to the design, convergence, and adoption of systems are required for future solutions in a variety of domains. Radically increasing the involvement of stakeholders with complex environments is one potential route for providing solutions in these domains, for example in energy systems or healthcare. In the longer term, approaches for enabling collaborative ecosystems may lead to high-impact solutions for today´s most pressing challenges. The “Sustainable Domain Solutions” tracks will identify domain requirements, research challenges and systems solutions with respect to the concept of Digital Ecosystems and Complex Environment Engineering, as outlined in the background and objectives of IEEE DEST 2012: Digital Ecosystems inherit concepts of open, loosely coupled, demand-driven, domain clustered, agent-based, self-organized, collaborative environments, where species/ agents form a temporary (or longer-term) coalition for a specific purpose or goal. Within this context, the tracks will focus on, but not be limited to, the following issues: - Scalability and availability, with respect to large infrastructure platforms - Evolvability, with respect to the introduction and life-cycle of service platforms - Usability, with respect to human factors and user benefits Track C: Cyber-Physical Energy Systems Track co-Chairs: - Neil Brown, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development (IESD), De Montfort University, UK - Rupert Gammon, Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development (IESD) , De Montfort University, UK - Peter Palensky, Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria Cyber-Physical Energy Systems address the merging of IT and energy infrastructures, with the aim of achieving more energy-efficient and sustainable lifestyles. The coordination of the various stakeholders involved in the future energy market raises many challenges, for example the data-intensive and complex event processing required. An example is provided by research driven by the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase the use of new and renewable energy technologies, and provide a high quality, comfortable, safe and efficient built environment. Such applied research aims to exploit the potential of information technology to boost energy efficiency and minimize our environmental footprint, while preserving or improving the quality of life for every individual in every nation. We are looking for papers that address medium-scale/large-scale and medium-term/long -term challenges for cyber-physical energy systems, and indicate/demonstrate potential solutions. Track D: Healthcare and Sustainable Living Track co-Chairs: - Rémi Bastide, ISIS-University Centre for Health Informatics, Carmaux, France - Matthew Smith, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany eHealth, Telemedicine, and Bio-System Research Systems all describe approaches to improving the capacity of healthcare systems through fundamental and applied research, technology, and services. Researchers and companies are, for example, exploring the use of sensor devices, human-system interfaces, and medical record systems in order to provide radically new solutions for helping patients. These advances require structural changes as well as technological development. Societies are facing an increase in chronic degenerative diseases that require monitoring and long-term patient management, the growing desire of patients to be treated in a family environment in order to protect their social ties, and, finally, a need to reduce costs. These factors necessitate a new strategic orientation in services offered by healthcare systems, in particular the transfer of a large portion of care activities from the hospital to the patient’s residence. We are looking for papers that address medium-scale/large-scale and medium-term/long -term challenges for healthcare and sustainable living, and indicate/demonstrate potential solutions. Track E: Digital Humanities Track co-Chairs: - Tobias Blanke, King’s College London, UK - Stuart Dunn, King’s College London, UK The digital humanities form a bridge between the traditional practices of scholarship and the opportunities afforded by advances in technology, enabling researchers to reconsider old problems in new ways, and providing the methods, tools and frameworks to support them in developing new modes of enquiry. On the one hand, the humanities are faced with ever greater volumes of complex data and digital resources, for example from the increasing mass digitisation of historical records. On the other hand, research in the humanities is moving away from the model of individual scholars to one in which international and inter-disciplinary teams of researchers collaborate actively within a diverse ecosystem of digital resources, tools, and services, not forgetting of course the users themselves – the rapid evolution of Web technologies continues to privilege the human as a key agent, both as provider and consumer of content, and this in turn is investing humanities scholarship with an increasing awareness of vast new audiences and potential participants. We are looking for papers that address medium-scale/large-scale and medium-term/long -term challenges for digital humanities, and indicate/demonstrate potential solutions. Track F: Collaborative Platforms for Sustainable Logistics and Transportation Track co-Chairs: - Frederick Benaben, Ecole de Mines d'Albi-Carmaux, France - Amadou Sienou, Abamix Research, Germany - Hervé Pingaud, University JF Champollion, France Across application domains, organizations and enterprises (such as Small-Medium Enterprises) gain their strengths from flexible market orientation, agile value chains and cluster -based innovation capacity. The changing global (business) environment challenges all organizations to aim for agility and performance-driven management through process focused thinking. These challenges reach far beyond the business world, affecting for example the formation and coordination of emergency teams in case of environmental disasters. For the effective collaboration of all the partners in such scenarios, the agility aspect of the Digital Ecosystem paradigm demands explicit support for risk management and collaboration. Agility implies the continuous improvement and reengineering of the business processes involved. However, the outcome of such process management efforts is risky because of the lack of operational information about future processes, so risk management is a key component. Similarly, collaboration support is required to allow real-time information sharing and interaction of the parties involved, for example in case of deviation from the agreed-upon target process. We are looking for papers that address medium-scale/large-scale and medium-term/long -term challenges for collaboration in the domain of logistics, including risk-management scenarios (e.g. after the occurrence of an environmental disaster), and that indicate/ demonstrate potential solutions. Track G: Platforms for Social and Community Involvement/Engagement Track co-Chairs: - Francois Grey, Tsinghua University, China - Margaret Tan, Singapore Internet Research Center, Singapore The internet, together with other advances in ICT such as the increased take-up of smart mobile devices, is enabling a new era of community engagement. In science, the application of volunteer computing is providing examples of engagement in which members of the public can contribute to scientific advances of social importance. Examples include modelling climate change (ClimatePrediction.net), developing drugs for AIDS (FightAids at home), or simulating the spread of malaria (MalariaControl.net). The participatory ecosystem is becoming still wider with projects such as GalaxyZoo, in which volunteers contribute their “thinking” rather than their computers, and global initiatives to broaden take-up such as Africa at home and Asia at home. On the social side, we are seeing substantial evidence of the role that digital technologies, especially the “Social Web” such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and video sharing sites, can play in community activism. The Social Web is in some quarters becoming the mainstream method for connecting people, sharing information, and influencing developments, particularly in areas where traditional modes of communication operate less effectively. This is reflected in a number of recent geopolitical events that have been referred to as “Twitter Revolutions”, and these technologies have played an undeniable role in such events as the “Arab Spring” and humanitarian crises such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The use of these technologies has however led to debates concerning the extent to which such digital technologies genuinely promote more democratic community action, and the extent to which they can be exploited by the powerful to reinforce their positions. We are looking for papers that address medium-scale/large-scale and medium-term/long -term challenges for social involvement/engagement, and indicate/demonstrate potential solutions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DEST-CEE2012-cfp.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 877465 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Jan 20 12:38:19 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:38:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Uncle Jeremy for the skillful attribute and successful movement. Also to all those, that have contributed immensely at the background a giant thanks. Not forgetting Avri for the great twist and successful implementation. To all great fellows and friends on the list, I say BRAVO! Sea On 20 Jan 2012 16:40, "Naveed haq" wrote: +1 Naveed-ul-Haq ------------------------------ From: b.schombe at gmail.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:40:31 +0100 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; jeremy at ciroap.org Subject: Re: [governance] Mailing list moved - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS BOOK Wonderfull, very nice SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 20 13:33:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:33:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators Message-ID: Dear List, Warm Greetings to you! [?][?][?] We trust that you are all in excellent health and good spirits. The transition from 2011 into the new year has certainly one not without drama. *Mailing List* In 2011, you will recall there was a discussion on the list to move the list. There were also discussions on how this was going to be done. As you can see from Jeremy's email, the new list is now fully operational. Old Email for the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org New Email for the list:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org* * * There is still the odd email going to the old list and we will keep notifying those emailing the list that it has since moved to the new one. There are a few people and organisations that we would like to thank for sacrificing their time, resources and energy into enabling our existence as a list:- - William Drake who during his Presidency of the CPSR enabled access for this list; - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - CPSR for hosting us; - Avri Doria for her resources and as a generous benefactor; - All the past Coordinators from when the list first started (*Jeremy Malcolm, Ginger Paque, Ian Peter, Vittoria Bertola, Avri Doria, Jeanette Hoffman, Adam Peake, YJ Park, Parminder Singh and Wolfgang Kleinwachter* ); - APC (Anriette Esterhuysen and her Team). We would also like to thank Dr Jeremy Malcolm for the mammoth effort and skill deployed in migrating our list. We also would like to thank each and every person who has contributed in some way, shape of form. Thank you for your passion, level of collaboration, expertise and collective desire and your commitment. If we have missed anyone, it is completely unintentional but please accept this is our acknowledgment and gratitude.[?][?][?] Izumi as you know has taken the liberty of providing the initial capital to enable the new hosting and members of the list can contribute by way of donations to the hosting via paypal on the http://www.igcaucus.org/. *Welcome New Members* We would also like to take this time to warmly welcome new members of the List.[?][?][?] We trust that you will find the list resourceful and interactive and robust. We welcome any discussions related to internet governance and invite you to add to the rich fragrant flavour that can only come when you add your perspectives. The diversity of the perspectives is what will continue to make the discussions exciting. *Calendar 2012* Aside from mapping the Internet Governance and related events in 2012, we would like to bring greater visibility to the various regions and to highlight their issues. We are also aware that new Regional IGFs like the Arab IGF will be created this year and we welcome these exciting developments. We look forward to a dynamic year full of interactions and energy. With our best regards, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 000.png Type: image/png Size: 406 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 328.png Type: image/png Size: 569 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 glaser at cgi.br Fri Jan 20 13:41:28 2012 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:41:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F19B558.2060101@cgi.br> */Vittorio Bertola/* ==================================== On 1/20/12 4:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear List, > > Warm Greetings to you! We trust that you are all in excellent health > and good spirits. The transition from 2011 into the new year has > certainly one not without drama. > > *_Mailing List_* > In 2011, you will recall there was a discussion on the list to move > the list. There were also discussions on how this was going to be > done. As you can see from Jeremy's email, the new list is now fully > operational. > > Old Email for the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > New Email for the list:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org > * > * > * > There is still the odd email going to the old list and we will keep > notifying those emailing the list that it has since moved to the new one. > > There are a few people and organisations that we would like to thank > for sacrificing their time, resources and energy into enabling our > existence as a list:- > > * William Drake who during his Presidency of the CPSR enabled access > for this list; > * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - CPSR for > hosting us; > * Avri Doria for her resources and as a generous benefactor; > * All the past Coordinators from when the list first started > (*/Jeremy Malcolm, Ginger Paque, Ian Peter, Vittoria Bertola, Avri > Doria, Jeanette Hoffman, Adam Peake, YJ Park, Parminder Singh and > Wolfgang Kleinwachter/*); > * APC (Anriette Esterhuysen and her Team). > > > We would also like to thank Dr Jeremy Malcolm for the mammoth effort > and skill deployed in migrating our list. We also would like to thank > each and every person who has contributed in some way, shape of form. > Thank you for your passion, level of collaboration, expertise and > collective desire and your commitment. > > If we have missed anyone, it is completely unintentional but please > accept this is our acknowledgment and gratitude. > > Izumi as you know has taken the liberty of providing the initial > capital to enable the new hosting and members of the list can > contribute by way of donations to the hosting via paypal on the > http://www.igcaucus.org/. > > *_Welcome New Members_* > We would also like to take this time to warmly welcome new members of > the List. We trust that you will find the list resourceful and > interactive and robust. We welcome any discussions related to internet > governance and invite you to add to the rich fragrant flavour that can > only come when you add your perspectives. The diversity of the > perspectives is what will continue to make the discussions exciting. > > *_Calendar 2012_* > Aside from mapping the Internet Governance and related events in 2012, > we would like to bring greater visibility to the various regions and > to highlight their issues. We are also aware that new Regional IGFs > like the Arab IGF will be created this year and we welcome these > exciting developments. > > We look forward to a dynamic year full of interactions and energy. > > With our best regards, > > Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 569 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 406 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 13:43:32 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 06:43:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators In-Reply-To: <4F19B558.2060101@cgi.br> References: <4F19B558.2060101@cgi.br> Message-ID: Yes we regret the typo and inconvenience that was unitentional, Vittorio Bertola On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > *Vittorio Bertola* > > ==================================== > > On 1/20/12 4:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear List, > > Warm Greetings to you! [?][?][?] We trust that you are all in excellent > health and good spirits. The transition from 2011 into the new year has > certainly one not without drama. > > *Mailing List* > In 2011, you will recall there was a discussion on the list to move the > list. There were also discussions on how this was going to be done. As you > can see from Jeremy's email, the new list is now fully operational. > > Old Email for the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org > New Email for the list:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org* > * > * > There is still the odd email going to the old list and we will keep > notifying those emailing the list that it has since moved to the new one. > > There are a few people and organisations that we would like to thank for > sacrificing their time, resources and energy into enabling our existence as > a list:- > > - William Drake who during his Presidency of the CPSR enabled access > for this list; > - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - CPSR for hosting > us; > - Avri Doria for her resources and as a generous benefactor; > - All the past Coordinators from when the list first started (*Jeremy > Malcolm, Ginger Paque, Ian Peter, Vittoria Bertola, Avri Doria, Jeanette > Hoffman, Adam Peake, YJ Park, Parminder Singh and Wolfgang Kleinwachter > *); > - APC (Anriette Esterhuysen and her Team). > > > We would also like to thank Dr Jeremy Malcolm for the mammoth effort > and skill deployed in migrating our list. We also would like to thank each > and every person who has contributed in some way, shape of form. Thank you > for your passion, level of collaboration, expertise and collective desire > and your commitment. > > If we have missed anyone, it is completely unintentional but please > accept this is our acknowledgment and gratitude.[?][?][?] > > Izumi as you know has taken the liberty of providing the initial > capital to enable the new hosting and members of the list can contribute by > way of donations to the hosting via paypal on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ > . > > *Welcome New Members* > We would also like to take this time to warmly welcome new members of the > List.[?][?][?] We trust that you will find the list resourceful and > interactive and robust. We welcome any discussions related to internet > governance and invite you to add to the rich fragrant flavour that can only > come when you add your perspectives. The diversity of the perspectives is > what will continue to make the discussions exciting. > > *Calendar 2012* > Aside from mapping the Internet Governance and related events in 2012, we > would like to bring greater visibility to the various regions and to > highlight their issues. We are also aware that new Regional IGFs like the > Arab IGF will be created this year and we welcome these exciting > developments. > > We look forward to a dynamic year full of interactions and energy. > > With our best regards, > > Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > -- 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: 000.png Type: image/png Size: 406 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 328.png Type: image/png Size: 569 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 soekpe at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 13:51:53 2012 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Android) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:51:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators Message-ID: Thank you Coordinators. Mother NATURE will surely inspire us all. Keep on the great service. Sea Sent from Samsung mobile "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >Dear List, > >Warm Greetings to you! [?][?][?] We trust that you are all in excellent health >and good spirits. The transition from 2011 into the new year has certainly >one not without drama. > >*Mailing List* >In 2011, you will recall there was a discussion on the list to move the >list. There were also discussions on how this was going to be done. As you >can see from Jeremy's email, the new list is now fully operational. > >Old Email for the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org >New Email for the list:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org* >* >* >There is still the odd email going to the old list and we will keep >notifying those emailing the list that it has since moved to the new one. > >There are a few people and organisations that we would like to thank for >sacrificing their time, resources and energy into enabling our existence as >a list:- > > - William Drake who during his Presidency of the CPSR enabled access for > this list; > - Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - CPSR for hosting us; > - Avri Doria for her resources and as a generous benefactor; > - All the past Coordinators from when the list first started (*Jeremy > Malcolm, Ginger Paque, Ian Peter, Vittoria Bertola, Avri Doria, Jeanette > Hoffman, Adam Peake, YJ Park, Parminder Singh and Wolfgang Kleinwachter* > ); > - APC (Anriette Esterhuysen and her Team). > > >We would also like to thank Dr Jeremy Malcolm for the mammoth effort and >skill deployed in migrating our list. We also would like to thank each and >every person who has contributed in some way, shape of form. Thank you for >your passion, level of collaboration, expertise and collective desire and >your commitment. > > If we have missed anyone, it is completely unintentional but please accept >this is our acknowledgment and gratitude.[?][?][?] > > Izumi as you know has taken the liberty of providing the initial >capital to enable the new hosting and members of the list can contribute by >way of donations to the hosting via paypal on the http://www.igcaucus.org/. > >*Welcome New Members* >We would also like to take this time to warmly welcome new members of the >List.[?][?][?] We trust that you will find the list resourceful and >interactive and robust. We welcome any discussions related to internet >governance and invite you to add to the rich fragrant flavour that can only >come when you add your perspectives. The diversity of the perspectives is >what will continue to make the discussions exciting. > >*Calendar 2012* >Aside from mapping the Internet Governance and related events in 2012, we >would like to bring greater visibility to the various regions and to >highlight their issues. We are also aware that new Regional IGFs like the >Arab IGF will be created this year and we welcome these exciting >developments. > >We look forward to a dynamic year full of interactions and energy. > >With our best regards, > >Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jan 20 14:39:40 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:39:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala and Sea, I think the mailing platform you are using is not set well in a manner that i am receiving phishing reports when you send me emails See images bellow: [image: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] [image: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8540 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7068 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 glaser at cgi.br Fri Jan 20 14:46:28 2012 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:46:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] Message from the Coordinators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F19C494.6090405@cgi.br> Dear All, If you have a private subject, _avoid to sent your message to the list_. Thanks Hartmut =========================== On 1/20/12 5:39 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Sala and Sea, > > I think the mailing platform you are using is not set well in a manner > that i am receiving phishing reports when you send me emails > > See images bellow: > ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg > ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 7068 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8540 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 15:03:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:03:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Impact of Migration of List etc [Feedback] Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, thank you Bernard for giving feedback. If there are others who are facing adverse impact and are receiving phishing reports etc, please do not hesitate to send me an email and I will escalate it to our Web Administrator Jeremy Malcolm or in the alternative you can email Jeremy and copy Izumi and I in. Izumi's address: iza at anr.org Jeremy's address: jeremy at ciroap.org Sala's address: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Kind Regards, On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Sala and Sea, > > I think the mailing platform you are using is not set well in a manner > that i am receiving phishing reports when you send me emails > > See images bellow: > [image: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] > [image: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > -- 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: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7068 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8540 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 psg.com Fri Jan 20 15:11:07 2012 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:11:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] a suggestion Message-ID: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> hi, I am wondering whether it isn't worth adding something like: Contributions the cost of maintaining the IGC website and email list can be made via Paypal to coordinators at igcaucus.org. This is also the address to use to contact with any technical issues about the wiki or the email list. Also feel free to add me to the list of helpers. cheers avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Jan 20 15:20:21 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:20:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] a suggestion In-Reply-To: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> References: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> Message-ID: oops meant to send this to: coordinators at igcaucus.org new habits to learn On 20 Jan 2012, at 15:11, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I am wondering whether it isn't worth adding something like: > > Contributions the cost of maintaining the IGC website and email list can be made via Paypal to coordinators at igcaucus.org. > This is also the address to use to contact with any technical issues about the wiki or the email list. > > Also feel free to add me to the list of helpers. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 20 15:22:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:22:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] a suggestion In-Reply-To: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> References: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> Message-ID: Thanks Avri. I was trying to figure out what the coordinators' address was. We also welcome your assistance. Sala On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I am wondering whether it isn't worth adding something like: > > Contributions the cost of maintaining the IGC website and email list can > be made via Paypal to coordinators at igcaucus.org. > This is also the address to use to contact with any technical issues about > the wiki or the email list. > > > Also feel free to add me to the list of helpers. > > cheers > 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 Fri Jan 20 15:25:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:25:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Impact of Migration of List etc [Feedback] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Correction. Please send all technical related feedback to do with List Administration to coordinators at igcaucus.org Sala On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, thank you Bernard for giving feedback. If there are others who > are facing adverse impact and are receiving phishing reports etc, please do > not hesitate to send me an email and I will escalate it to our Web > Administrator Jeremy Malcolm or in the alternative you can email Jeremy and > copy Izumi and I in. > > Izumi's address: iza at anr.org > Jeremy's address: jeremy at ciroap.org > Sala's address: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > Kind Regards, > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Sala and Sea, >> >> I think the mailing platform you are using is not set well in a manner >> that i am receiving phishing reports when you send me emails >> >> See images bellow: >> [image: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] >> [image: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] >> >> All the best, >> Bernard. >> - >> Bernard SADAKA >> > > > > -- > 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: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8540 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7068 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 Fri Jan 20 16:25:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:25:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Are IPR "human rights"? In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <4F1869D5.5070905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120120212516.0A0B815C3EF@quill.bollow.ch> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > WIPO published a Report on Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey > of Issues which you can access via > http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ecommerce/ip_survey/ That is from 2002. Are WIPO's views on these matters unchanged the same as ten years ago? 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Jan 20 16:31:53 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:31:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: tr: Re: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] Message-ID: <14077946.3133.1327095113088.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j19> sorry if double posting Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 20/01/12 18:29 > De : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Baudouin Schombe" , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Copie à : "Judy Okite" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] > > Dear Baudouin Thank you for this interesting information about the Central African sub-region which deserves our close attention since an appropriate  telecoms/ICT infrastructure is still in infancy. What's more, the Central African Backbone (CAB) project is unrelevant for a number of reasons identified by the NGO CESIR who sent its critics but also its propositions to the international bodies concerned : World Bank, AfDB, ITU. If you are interested in these propositions let me know, i'll send you the documents submitted to these bodies. As far as the themes and issues raised by the Central African IGF in its meeting in Brazzaville are concerned, I'd like to thank Wilfrid for his report attached to your mail. I examined it thoroughly and added my opinion and comments, since the meeting missed some important points. You'll find the document in French completed by these additions attached to this mail. I'd be happy to get your comments either on this list or on the africanet mailing list. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT and CESIR > Message du 19/01/12 18:07 > De : "Baudouin Schombe" > A : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Copie à : "Judy Okite" , governance at lists.cpsr.org > Objet : Re: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] > > Dear Sala, > > I am so distressed to see that the IGF website / Central Africa (www.fgiac.org) is rendered unusable. It was set up and managed by Philemon Kissanguo of Congo Brazzaville. > I can only send you the report of the 2011 IGF in Central Africa. > > For the year 2012, this meeting will be held in Cameroon. I contact Philemon in an emergency and I would like > inform you later. > > Baudouin > > > 2012/1/19 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Thanks Judy. Badouin, grateful if you could advise us of the dates for your regional IGF. > Kind Regards,   > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Judy Okite wrote: > Hello Sala, > > hope that you are well and thank you, for all your efforts. > > Mr. Baudouin Schombe > Contact:- b.schombe at gmail.com or baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net  are one of the key, persons, in the organisation and cordination of  Central Africa IGF. > > Copied, him on the email as well. > > Kind Regards, > “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” Kofi Annan > > >     On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >     Dear All, > We have sent emails to the various Secretariats of the Regional Internet Governance Forums to seek dates of when they will host their Regional IGFs. We would like to ensure that this is up on the IGC Website as well. We contacted the Secretariats based on the listing available via  http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/regional-igfs . > We were unable to get a hold of the Central African IGF organisers. If there are important things happening that you think should feature on the IGC Calendar please send us an email to inform us.   > Kind Regards,   > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   > >   >     ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >   >   > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   > >         > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com >          baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > [ Rapport FGIAC2011 .doc (53.0 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Afrique Centrale_Rapport FGIAC2011.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 rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jan 20 16:49:03 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination for the MAG / Robert Guerra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A915022-AAF9-43E4-95D4-7BA73F5AD114@privaterra.org> Dear IGC Nominating committee: I would like to put forward my name to be endorsed as a civil society member of the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group . I have been actively involved as a civil society participant at the Internet Governance Forum and its predecessor the UN Word Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). I believe my experience and knowledge of key Internet Governance issues, proven track record to support the active participation and involvement of civil society from developing countries, and ability to effectively work in multi-stakeholder fashion will allow civil society to be effectively and strategy represented on the MAG. If selected for the MAG, I would commit to maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGF. This engagement would include keeping CS constituencies and the IGF informed about MAG proceedings and related matters as well as present their positions on the MAG. I would also strive to identify funding to be able to support civil society participation at the IGF and related regional and national level consultations. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My details, including a short Bio is below for the nominating committee to review & consider: Name: Robert Guerra email: rguerra at privaterra.ca URL : http://citizenlab.org/people/ Nationality : Canadian & European (Spain) Languages: Fluent in English, Spanish and French Affiliation(2) : Special Advisor, The Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto & Director and Founder, Privaterra Issues of Interest: Human Rights, Privacy, Cyber Security, Cyber warfare, Censorship, Social Networking, Civil Society participation, Cloud Computing, Corporate Social Responsibility Internet Governance Caucus: Involved since 2004 (7 years) Previous IGF's attended: 2006 (Greece), 2007 (Brazil), 2008 (India), 2009 (Egypt), 2010 (Lithuania), 2011 (Kenya) Brief Bio: ---------- I am a Civil Society expert specializing in issues of Internet Freedom, Internet Governance and Human Rights. I am currently a special adviser to the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. The Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Canada focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights. The CitizenLab is a “hothouse” that combines the disciplines of political science, sociology, computer science, engineering, and graphic design. Its mission is to undertake advanced research and engage in development that monitors, analyses, and impacts the exercise of political power in cyberspace. It achieves its mission through collaborative partnerships with leading edge research centers, organizations, and individuals around the world, and through a pioneering “fusion” methodology that combines technical reconnaissance, field investigations, and data mining, analysis, and visualization. The Citizen Lab’s ongoing research network includes the Information Warfare Monitor, the OpenNet Initiative, OpenNet Eurasia, and Opennet.Asia. I have given numerous media interviews and am often invited to speak at events to share the challenges being faced by social justice organizations in regards to surveillance, censorship and privacy. I advise numerous non-profits, foundations, governments and international organizations, including Taking IT Global and DiploFoundation's Internet Governance and Policy Capacity Building Program. In regards to involvement on Internet Governance Issues, I have been involved with ICANN as a general participant and a member of the ICANN's ALAC and Security and Stability Advisory Committee, I have actively served on the US IGF Steering Committee since 2009 and, I have attended and actively participated at all the meetings of the IGF as well as the two UN World Summits on the Information Society. My role at the latter involved being a member of the civil society bureau, the Internet governance caucus, and the NGO adviser to the Canadian government's delegation. Further details can be found on my online bio at: http://goo.gl/kkShd -- 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 aizu at anr.org Fri Jan 20 21:50:51 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:50:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] a suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <45753465-04A7-4C78-8160-7AC18F5C11C4@psg.com> Message-ID: Thanks Avri for good suggestion. izumi 2012/1/21 Avri Doria : > oops meant to send this to: coordinators at igcaucus.org > new habits to learn > > > On 20 Jan 2012, at 15:11, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I am wondering whether it isn't worth adding something like: >> >> Contributions the cost of maintaining the IGC website and email list can be made via Paypal to  coordinators at igcaucus.org. >> This is also the address to use to contact with any technical issues about the wiki or the email list. > >> >> Also feel free to add me to the list of helpers. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 f.massit at orange.fr Sat Jan 21 09:59:58 2012 From: f.massit at orange.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?fran=E7oise?=) Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:59:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hello! Message-ID: <7779AEED-7757-4EDF-83EF-3F4D0DA63B32@orange.fr> Thanks for your involvement. FMF françoise massit f.massit at orange.fr -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 20 14:53:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:53:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload Message-ID: <4F19C622.4060403@gmail.com> > [First they came for those with HIV, and I said nothing... then they > came for me...] > > > U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload > > AP > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2815112.ece > > > One of the world's largest file-sharing sites was shut down on > Thursday, and its founder and several company executives were charged > with violating piracy laws, federal prosecutors said. > > > An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of > costing copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from > pirated films and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day > after websites including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest > of two congressional proposals intended to thwart online piracy. > > > The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, > formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested on > Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other > defendants are at large. > > > Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the > volume of downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile > support from celebrities, musicians and other content producers who > are most often the victims of copyright infringement and piracy. > Before the website was taken down, it contained endorsements from Kim > Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West, among others. > > Before the site was taken down, it posted a statement saying > allegations that it facilitated massive breaches of copyright laws > were "grotesquely overblown." > > > "The fact is that the vast majority of Mega's Internet traffic is > legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would > like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a > dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch," the statement > said. > > > A lawyer who represented the company in a lawsuit last year declined > comment on Thursday. Megaupload is considered a "cyberlocker," in > which users can upload and transfer files that are too large to send > by email. Such sites can have perfectly legitimate uses. But the > Motion Picture Association of America, which has campaigned for a > crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast majority of content being > shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright laws. > > > The website allowed users to download films, TV shows, games, music > and other content for free, but made money by charging subscriptions > to people who wanted access to faster download speeds or extra > content. The website also sold advertising. The indictment was > returned in the Eastern District of Virginia, which claimed > jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged pirated materials > were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Virginia. > > Keywords: Megaupload > , > anti-piracy laws > , > Internet censorship > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jan 21 14:31:15 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 06:31:15 +1100 Subject: [governance] U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload In-Reply-To: <4F19C622.4060403@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is one of the formal responses from the Pirate Parties to this http://www.pp-international.net/node/515 Interestingly most of the Pirate Parties refuse to endorse Megaupload and disagree with its business model and practices. However there is strong opposition to the way these raids were carried out and the jurisdictional issues involved. Ian Peter From: Riaz K Tayob Reply-To: , Riaz K Tayob Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:53:06 +0200 To: Subject: [governance] U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload > > [First they came for those with HIV, and I said nothing... then they came for > me...] > > > U.S. shuts down file-sharing website Megaupload > AP > > http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article2815112.ece > > > > > > > One of the world¹s largest file-sharing sites was shut down on Thursday, and > its founder and several company executives were charged with violating piracy > laws, federal prosecutors said. > > > > > > An indictment accuses Megaupload.com of costing > copyright holders more than $500 million in lost revenue from pirated films > and other content. The indictment was unsealed one day after websites > including Wikipedia and Craigslist shut down in protest of two congressional > proposals intended to thwart online piracy. > > > > > > The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly > known as Kim Schmitz, and three others were arrested on Thursday in New > Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large. > > > > > > Megaupload was unique not only because of its massive size and the volume of > downloaded content, but also because it had high-profile support from > celebrities, musicians and other content producers who are most often the > victims of copyright infringement and piracy. Before the website was taken > down, it contained endorsements from Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye > West, among others. > > > Before the site was taken down, it posted a statement saying allegations that > it facilitated massive breaches of copyright laws were ³grotesquely > overblown.² > > > > > > ³The fact is that the vast majority of Mega¹s Internet traffic is legitimate, > and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage > of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good > ideas. Please get in touch,² the statement said. > > > > > > A lawyer who represented the company in a lawsuit last year declined comment > on Thursday. Megaupload is considered a ³cyberlocker,² in which users can > upload and transfer files that are too large to send by email. Such sites can > have perfectly legitimate uses. But the Motion Picture Association of America, > which has campaigned for a crackdown on piracy, estimated that the vast > majority of content being shared on Megaupload was in violation of copyright > laws. > > > > > > The website allowed users to download films, TV shows, games, music and other > content for free, but made money by charging subscriptions to people who > wanted access to faster download speeds or extra content. The website also > sold advertising. The indictment was returned in the Eastern District of > Virginia, which claimed jurisdiction in part because some of the alleged > pirated materials were hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Virginia. > > > > Keywords: Megaupload > , anti-piracy > laws , > Internet censorship > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 22 21:32:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:32:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Message from Coordinators Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, 새해 복 많이 받으세요 (Happy Lunar New Year!) and 新年快樂 Xin Nian Kuai Le (Happy Chinese New Year...Year of the Dragon) to everyone! May this year bring with it much fun, joy, warmth and success. *Notice of Scheduled Maintenance* This is to advise that we have been advised from our hosts that their IPv6 router will be offline from 21:00 - 22:00 UK time (Monday 23rd January 2011). This is to rectify some of the IPv6 issues that we have been experiencing over the weekend. We regret the temporary inconvenience. 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 betunat at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 01:20:09 2012 From: betunat at gmail.com (Bethel Terefe) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:20:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Impact of Migration of List etc [Feedback] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear salanieta, i am receiving the same phishing reports as well so pls see what u can do...... Regards, Bethel On 1/20/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Correction. Please send all technical related feedback to do with List > Administration to coordinators at igcaucus.org > > Sala > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, thank you Bernard for giving feedback. If there are others who >> are facing adverse impact and are receiving phishing reports etc, please >> do >> not hesitate to send me an email and I will escalate it to our Web >> Administrator Jeremy Malcolm or in the alternative you can email Jeremy >> and >> copy Izumi and I in. >> >> Izumi's address: iza at anr.org >> Jeremy's address: jeremy at ciroap.org >> Sala's address: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >> >>> Sala and Sea, >>> >>> I think the mailing platform you are using is not set well in a manner >>> that i am receiving phishing reports when you send me emails >>> >>> See images bellow: >>> [image: ScreenCapture_0001 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] >>> [image: ScreenCapture_0002 20-Jan-12 21.37.jpg] >>> >>> All the best, >>> Bernard. >>> - >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Mon Jan 23 09:56:30 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Calendar Preparations for 2012 [IGC] In-Reply-To: <14077946.3133.1327095113088.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j19> References: <14077946.3133.1327095113088.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j19> Message-ID: Dear all, I reworked the report in the form. Many elements of clarification that could be added to this report are no longer available. However, any comments and suggestions from Jean Louis are carefully noted and I will present them at our central Africa preparatory meeting to be held in 2012 in Cameroon. Jean Philemon and Michel Tchonang will help to reactivate the website of the IGF Central Africa to access other information. the English version of the report is also attached.My apologies ahead of the quality of translation. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Afrique Centrale_Rapport FGIAC2011.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: afrique centrale IGF 2011 report english.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 19:06:16 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:06:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] MEGAUPLOAD is back to business Message-ID: <1327363576.94653.YahooMailNeo@web130106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi people Just a quick note that after the pull down of http://www.megaupload.com, MEGAUPLOAD is back to business on http://www.meEgaupload.NET Cheers Nnenna   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jan 23 22:00:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:00:20 +1300 Subject: [governance] MEGAUPLOAD is back to business In-Reply-To: <1327363576.94653.YahooMailNeo@web130106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1327363576.94653.YahooMailNeo@web130106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-take-down-department-of-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/ and attacks by Anonymous on the Department of Justice, see link. On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Nnenna wrote: > Hi people > > Just a quick note that after the pull down of http://www.megaupload.com, > MEGAUPLOAD is back to business on http://www.meEgaupload.NET > > Cheers > > Nnenna > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 Jan 23 22:53:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:53:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Anonymous allegedly takes down sites Message-ID: Dear All, In light of what has been touted as the largest attack allegedly carried out by Anonymous which is reported to have been an attack on 10 sites in 20 minutes, see: http://www.slashgear.com/anonymous-take-down-department-of-justice-riaa-mpaa-universal-music-19210145/ in which the US Department of Justice link and other websites were targeted raises numerous issues in internet governance. The attack is alleged to be in protest of the controversial SOPA and PIPA Bills. We encourage dialogue and robust debate and any threats to the internet architecture is indicative that there is a group of people and organised communities who are unhappy with how things are discussed and debated. To take down websites arbitrarily whether by governments, regulators or independent groups is a threat to the internet architecture. Regardless of how much we dislike a Bill, we have to engage in legitimate processes to encourage dialogue and debate issues. It is a contradiction to lobby against the arbitrary censorship that the SOPA and PIPA Bill and to arbitrarily take down a site just because they do not share our point of view. At the same time, I am mindful that without a full and independent investigation being carried out, we have no way of knowing whether it was an attack by Anti SOPA and PIPA lobbyists or whether the attacks were engineered by victims of the attacks to divert attention away from the actual issues which is *arbitrary censorship*. These are all mere speculation and of course until the matter is fully investigated, we will never know. One thing is certain, we should not detract from the core issue that arbitrary censorship that endangers freedom of expression is dangerous. Kind Regards, These are my personal views. 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 03:50:37 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:50:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ITU_In_=93Urgent=94_Meeting_On_Glob?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?al_Spectrum_As_New_Devices_Gobble_It_Up?= Message-ID: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> ITU In “Urgent” Meeting On Global Spectrum As New Devices Gobble It Up Published on 23 January 2012 @ 10:49 pm EmailShare Print This Post Print This Post By William New , Intellectual Property Watch A high-level, highly technical UN meeting that occurs about once every four years at which key decisions are made about wireless communications opened today in Geneva. The meeting comes as devices such as smart phones and tablets are devouring many times more spectrum than mobile phones of the past. The UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference runs from 23 January to 17 February and involves top-level officials in telecommunications policy from around the world. Some 3,000 participants are expected, representing more than 150 of the ITU’s 193 members, according to organisers. The conference will review and revise the Radio Regulations, the international treaty governing the use of radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbits, according to the ITU. A top priority for the United States delegation will be to set the forum for debate between now and the next WRC meeting in 2015, to have a negotiation on how to allocate more spectrum for mobile networks, US delegation head Amb. Decker Anstrom told a press briefing today. “This is a pressing need for the United States,” he said. Allocation will affect broadband wireless internet services, officials said. Innovative solutions to maximise spectrum use are being sought. US Federal Communications Commission Chairman noted that when the last WRC meeting was held four years ago, the first Apple iPhone had just been introduced, and there were no smart phones nor tablets (like the iPad). Smart phone growth is so fast that last year there were 500 million and this year one billion worldwide, with as many as 5 billion expected by 2015. This respresents an “extraordinary opportunity” for advancing commerce, education, safety and other social benefits, he said. But smart phones place far more demand on spectrum. A smart phone uses 24 times more spectrum than the predecessor feature phones, and a tablet uses 120 times more spectrum, he said. Without taking action to find more spectrum for these devices, “we risk losing out on extraordinary commercial and social opportunities,” he said. This month, the US will push for other countries not to exclude spectrum bands from studies to be conducted between now and 2015 on their possible use for mobile networks. Some countries such as Russia are suggesting that certain bands be kept out of the discussion, officials said. “Fuelled by rapid technological developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) along with the increasing convergence of radiocommunication services in today’s communication devices, there is an urgent need to ensure the best efficiencies in the use of spectrum, a finite resource,” the ITU said in a release. “WRC-12 will examine the technical, regulatory and operational aspects to address allocation and frequency sharing to ensure high quality of radiocommunication services for maritime and aeronautical transport as well as for scientific purposes related to the environment, meteorology and climatology, disaster prediction, mitigation and relief.” The meeting is not expected to directly involve intellectual property rights, such as online content or anti-piracy efforts, according to officials, but related issues can arise, including bilaterally. The meeting also will not directly involve this year’s critical transition of the global internet to IPv6 from the earlier IPv4, which is running out of space. “The World Radiocommunication will review and modify global spectrum regulations to ensure that this most precious resource is used effectively to benefit all players,” ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré said in a release. “The aim is to ensure reliable radio services are available everywhere and at any time enabling people to live and travel safely while enjoying high performance radiocommunications.” The appointed chair of the meeting is Tarek Al Awadhi of the United Arab Emirates. The six vice-chairs are from Algeria, Armenia, France, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which oversees US relations with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), declined to comment on a question from /Intellectual Property Watch/ about the performance so far of the newly launched generic top-level domain programme (/IPW/, Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting, 11 January 2012 ). Related Articles: * Lines Of Global Enforcement Debate Surface at WIPO Meeting * An Urgent Letter From Intellectual Property Watch * Amid Global Effort To Fill Internet Policy Gaps, India Proposes New UN Body /William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch ./ Categories: Access to Knowledge , Copyright Policy , English , Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting , Patent Policy , Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains , United Nations -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 06:35:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:35:35 +1300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ITU_In_=93Urgent=94_Meeting_On_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Global_Spectrum_As_New_Devices_Gobble_It_Up?= In-Reply-To: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> References: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is an awesome article Riaz as it shows the challenges that lie in the future with regards to forecasted bandwidth consumption and the subsequent impact on spectrum. The challenges with connectivity that the I Phone users experienced in New York some time ago reflect the reality of these challenges. One of the trends that we see vendors morphing into is the creation of products that consume less spectrum. I was at the Communicasia in 2010 and this was one of the discussions that Vendors were having etc. The flood of products and apps will cause a huge strain on the spectrum and affect consumption patterns etc aside from IP address issues etc. This in itself has implications on the nature of governance discussions. I am sure the ITU Meeting to discuss this will no doubt be interesting and exciting. The strain in itself and future forecasted bandwidth consumption will force an evolution in increasing backbone infrastructure and the entire information infrastructure as we know it. Proper planning and forecasting now will help alleviate potential congestion issues. Sala On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > ITU In “Urgent” Meeting On Global Spectrum As New Devices Gobble It Up Published > on 23 January 2012 @ 10:49 pm > > EmailShare [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > By William New , Intellectual > Property Watch > > A high-level, highly technical UN meeting that occurs about once every > four years at which key decisions are made about wireless communications > opened today in Geneva. The meeting comes as devices such as smart phones > and tablets are devouring many times more spectrum than mobile phones of > the past. > > The UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World > Radiocommunication Conference runs from 23 January to 17 Februaryand involves top-level officials in telecommunications policy from around > the world. Some 3,000 participants are expected, representing more than 150 > of the ITU’s 193 members, according to organisers. > > The conference will review and revise the Radio Regulations, the > international treaty governing the use of radio-frequency spectrum and > satellite orbits, according to the ITU. > > A top priority for the United States delegation will be to set the forum > for debate between now and the next WRC meeting in 2015, to have a > negotiation on how to allocate more spectrum for mobile networks, US > delegation head Amb. Decker Anstrom told a press briefing today. > > “This is a pressing need for the United States,” he said. Allocation will > affect broadband wireless internet services, officials said. Innovative > solutions to maximise spectrum use are being sought. > > US Federal Communications Commission Chairman noted that when the last WRC > meeting was held four years ago, the first Apple iPhone had just been > introduced, and there were no smart phones nor tablets (like the iPad). > Smart phone growth is so fast that last year there were 500 million and > this year one billion worldwide, with as many as 5 billion expected by 2015. > > This respresents an “extraordinary opportunity” for advancing commerce, > education, safety and other social benefits, he said. But smart phones > place far more demand on spectrum. > > A smart phone uses 24 times more spectrum than the predecessor feature > phones, and a tablet uses 120 times more spectrum, he said. Without taking > action to find more spectrum for these devices, “we risk losing out on > extraordinary commercial and social opportunities,” he said. > > This month, the US will push for other countries not to exclude spectrum > bands from studies to be conducted between now and 2015 on their possible > use for mobile networks. Some countries such as Russia are suggesting that > certain bands be kept out of the discussion, officials said. > > “Fuelled by rapid technological developments in information and > communication technologies (ICTs) along with the increasing convergence of > radiocommunication services in today’s communication devices, there is an > urgent need to ensure the best efficiencies in the use of spectrum, a > finite resource,” the ITU said in a release. “WRC-12 will examine the > technical, regulatory and operational aspects to address allocation and > frequency sharing to ensure high quality of radiocommunication services for > maritime and aeronautical transport as well as for scientific purposes > related to the environment, meteorology and climatology, disaster > prediction, mitigation and relief.” > > The meeting is not expected to directly involve intellectual property > rights, such as online content or anti-piracy efforts, according to > officials, but related issues can arise, including bilaterally. The meeting > also will not directly involve this year’s critical transition of the > global internet to IPv6 from the earlier IPv4, which is running out of > space. > > “The World Radiocommunication will review and modify global spectrum > regulations to ensure that this most precious resource is used effectively > to benefit all players,” ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré said in a > release. “The aim is to ensure reliable radio services are available > everywhere and at any time enabling people to live and travel safely while > enjoying high performance radiocommunications.” > > The appointed chair of the meeting is Tarek Al Awadhi of the United Arab > Emirates. The six vice-chairs are from Algeria, Armenia, France, New > Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. > > Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications > and Information and administrator of the National Telecommunications and > Information Administration (NTIA), which oversees US relations with the > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), declined to > comment on a question from *Intellectual Property Watch* about the > performance so far of the newly launched generic top-level domain programme > (*IPW*, Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting, 11 > January 2012). > > Related Articles: > > - Lines Of Global Enforcement Debate Surface at WIPO Meeting > - An Urgent Letter From Intellectual Property Watch > - Amid Global Effort To Fill Internet Policy Gaps, India Proposes New > UN Body > > *William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch.* > > Categories: Access to Knowledge, > Copyright Policy, > English , Information > and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, > Patent Policy , Trademarks/Geographical > Indications/Domains, > United Nations > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 06:54:52 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:54:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?ITU_In_=E2=80=9CUrgent=E2=80=9D_Meetin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_On_Global_Spectrum_As_New_Devices_Gobble_It_Up?= In-Reply-To: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> References: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <126D5179-2AD4-4BA8-BA49-A94B868A5AEC@gmail.com> What do you think is the impact on broadband, something that developing countries are already struggling with... Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 24 Jan 2012, at 01:50 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > ITU In “Urgent” Meeting On Global Spectrum As New Devices Gobble It Up > > Published on 23 January 2012 @ 10:49 pm > EmailShare Print This Post > > By William New, Intellectual Property Watch > > A high-level, highly technical UN meeting that occurs about once every four years at which key decisions are made about wireless communications opened today in Geneva. The meeting comes as devices such as smart phones and tablets are devouring many times more spectrum than mobile phones of the past. > > The UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference runs from 23 January to 17 February and involves top-level officials in telecommunications policy from around the world. Some 3,000 participants are expected, representing more than 150 of the ITU’s 193 members, according to organisers. > > The conference will review and revise the Radio Regulations, the international treaty governing the use of radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbits, according to the ITU. > > A top priority for the United States delegation will be to set the forum for debate between now and the next WRC meeting in 2015, to have a negotiation on how to allocate more spectrum for mobile networks, US delegation head Amb. Decker Anstrom told a press briefing today. > > “This is a pressing need for the United States,” he said. Allocation will affect broadband wireless internet services, officials said. Innovative solutions to maximise spectrum use are being sought. > > US Federal Communications Commission Chairman noted that when the last WRC meeting was held four years ago, the first Apple iPhone had just been introduced, and there were no smart phones nor tablets (like the iPad). Smart phone growth is so fast that last year there were 500 million and this year one billion worldwide, with as many as 5 billion expected by 2015. > > This respresents an “extraordinary opportunity” for advancing commerce, education, safety and other social benefits, he said. But smart phones place far more demand on spectrum. > > A smart phone uses 24 times more spectrum than the predecessor feature phones, and a tablet uses 120 times more spectrum, he said. Without taking action to find more spectrum for these devices, “we risk losing out on extraordinary commercial and social opportunities,” he said. > > This month, the US will push for other countries not to exclude spectrum bands from studies to be conducted between now and 2015 on their possible use for mobile networks. Some countries such as Russia are suggesting that certain bands be kept out of the discussion, officials said. > > “Fuelled by rapid technological developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) along with the increasing convergence of radiocommunication services in today’s communication devices, there is an urgent need to ensure the best efficiencies in the use of spectrum, a finite resource,” the ITU said in a release. “WRC-12 will examine the technical, regulatory and operational aspects to address allocation and frequency sharing to ensure high quality of radiocommunication services for maritime and aeronautical transport as well as for scientific purposes related to the environment, meteorology and climatology, disaster prediction, mitigation and relief.” > > The meeting is not expected to directly involve intellectual property rights, such as online content or anti-piracy efforts, according to officials, but related issues can arise, including bilaterally. The meeting also will not directly involve this year’s critical transition of the global internet to IPv6 from the earlier IPv4, which is running out of space. > > “The World Radiocommunication will review and modify global spectrum regulations to ensure that this most precious resource is used effectively to benefit all players,” ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré said in a release. “The aim is to ensure reliable radio services are available everywhere and at any time enabling people to live and travel safely while enjoying high performance radiocommunications.” > > The appointed chair of the meeting is Tarek Al Awadhi of the United Arab Emirates. The six vice-chairs are from Algeria, Armenia, France, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. > > Lawrence Strickling, assistant secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which oversees US relations with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), declined to comment on a question from Intellectual Property Watch about the performance so far of the newly launched generic top-level domain programme (IPW, Information and Communications Technology/Broadcasting, 11 January 2012). > > Related Articles: > > Lines Of Global Enforcement Debate Surface at WIPO Meeting > An Urgent Letter From Intellectual Property Watch > Amid Global Effort To Fill Internet Policy Gaps, India Proposes New UN Body > William New may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.ch. > > Categories: Access to Knowledge, Copyright Policy, English, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, Patent Policy, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains, United Nations > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 24 07:43:37 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:43:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ITU_In_=93Urgent=94_Meeting_On_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Global_Spectrum_As_New_Devices_Gobble_It_Up?= In-Reply-To: References: <4F1E70DD.1040106@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F1EA779.8050209@gmail.com> Optimism of the will (sure some global cooperation may be useful and help), pessimism of the intellect (the rentier class will massage their revolving door public bureaucrats to get what they want and how they want it)... the previous ITU head seemed to me to be a little more open to governance issues than seems to be presently... but that is just an impression loosely formed On 2012/01/24 01:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is an awesome article Riaz as it shows the challenges that lie in > the future with regards to forecasted bandwidth consumption and the > subsequent impact on spectrum. The challenges with connectivity that > the I Phone users experienced in New York some time ago reflect the > reality of these challenges. > > One of the trends that we see vendors morphing into is the creation of > products that consume less spectrum. I was at the Communicasia in 2010 > and this was one of the discussions that Vendors were having etc. The > flood of products and apps will cause a huge strain on the spectrum > and affect consumption patterns etc aside from IP address issues etc. > > This in itself has implications on the nature of governance > discussions. I am sure the ITU Meeting to discuss this will no doubt > be interesting and exciting. > > The strain in itself and future forecasted bandwidth consumption will > force an evolution in increasing backbone infrastructure and the > entire information infrastructure as we know it. > > Proper planning and forecasting now will help alleviate potential > congestion issues. > > Sala -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 10:14:38 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:14:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Arab Dialogue on Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear All, Beirut will witness next week two major conferences regarding IG: - Conference and Public Consultations to Establish the Arab IGF 31 January – 1 February 2012 - Arab Telecom and Internet Forum 2-3 February 2012 Will any of you be attending any of them? All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA Lebanon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jan 24 10:52:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:52:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] Arab Dialogue on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bernard, Thank you for this. This is excellent and we welcome developments in the Arab region and encourage those who can attend or extend their support to get involved. Kindly advise who the coordinators of the two meetings are and how people can get involved etc. With our best wishes for the region, On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Dear All, > > Beirut will witness next week two major conferences regarding IG: > > - Conference and Public Consultations to Establish the Arab IGF 31 > January – 1 February 2012 > - Arab Telecom and Internet Forum 2-3 February 2012 > > Will any of you be attending any of them? > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > Lebanon > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 Tue Jan 24 11:25:42 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:25:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Forbes: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad,Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA Message-ID: Internet governance by another name... M -----Original Message----- From: a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:36 AM To: a2k at lists.keionline.org Subject: [A2k] Forbes: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad,Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad- just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/ E.D. Kain, Contributor I write tech policy, nerd culture, and our hyper-connected future. Tech 1/23/2012 @ 11:10AM |40,241 views If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA Image by mermadon 1967 via Flickr When sites like Wikipedia and Reddit banded together for a major blackout January 18th, the impact was felt all the way to Washington D.C. The blackout had lawmakers running from the controversial anti-piracy legislation, SOPA and PIPA, which critics said threatened freedom of speech online. Unfortunately for free-speech advocates, censorship is still a serious threat. Few people have heard of ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, but the provisions in the agreement are just as pernicious as anything we saw in SOPA. Worse, the agreement spans virtually all of the countries in the developed world, including all of the EU, the United States, Switzerland and Japan. Many of these countries have already signed or ratified it, and the cogs are still turning. The treaty has been secretly negotiated behind the scenes, with unelected bureaucrats working closely with entertainment industry lobbyists to craft the provisions in the treaty. The Bush administration started the process, but the Obama administration has aggressively pursued it. Indeed, we've already signed on to the treaty. All it needs now is Senate ratification. The time to stop the treaty is now, and we may need a second global internet blackout to call attention to it. Here's a quick video primer: ACTA bypasses the sovereign laws of participating nations, forcing ISP's across the globe to adopt these draconian measures. Worse, it goes much further than the internet, cracking down on generic drugs and making food patents even more radical than they are by enforcing a global standard on seed patents that threatens local farmers and food independence across the developed world. Despite ACTA's secrecy, criticism of the agreement has been widespread. Countries like India and Brazil have been vocal opponents of the agreement, claiming that it will do a great deal of harm to emerging economies. I'll have more on the agreement as it emerges. But to briefly sum up, ACTA contains global IP provisions as restrictive or worse than anything contained in SOPA and PIPA. . ACTA spans virtually all of the developed world, threatening the freedom of the internet as well as access to medication and food. The threat is every bit as real for those countries not involved in the process as the signatories themselves. . ACTA has already been signed by many countries including the US, but requires ratification in the EU parliament and the US Senate. . The entire monstrosity has been negotiated behind closed doors and kept secret from the public. Technocrats, beholden to the deep pockets of the entertainment lobby, have masked the agreement behind the misnomer of "anti-counterfeiting" when in fact it goes much, much further. If you thought SOPA would break the internet, ACTA is much worse. And it could become law across the global economy without so much as a murmur of opposition. Worse still, it's not alone. Even more restrictive provisions exist in another trade agreement currently being hammered out by various nations. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, there are "other plurilateral agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which contains a chapter on IP enforcement that would have state signatories adopt even more restrictive copyright measures than ACTA. Similarly, negotiations over TPP are also held in secret and with little oversight by the public or civil society. These initiatives, negotiated without participation from civil society or the public, are an affront to a democratic world order. EFF will remain vigilant against these international initiatives that threaten to choke off creativity, innovation, and free speech, and will stand with EDRi, FFII, La Quadrature du Net and our other EU fellow traveller organizations in their campaign to defeat ACTA in the European Parliament in January." The global economy needs to be seen as separate from those nations which comprise the global community of states. Civil society and a free global economy are not the same thing as the bogeyman so often referred to simply as "globalism." The free flow of goods and information is as much threatened by the global state apparatus as it is assisted by it, and industries with a vested interested in maintaining the status quo through draconian protectionist measures are now threatening the last frontier of the truly free economy. By threatening the internet and free speech, the entertainment industry threatens its own existence. But with only short-term profits in mind, this will not deter them. Yes, our lawmakers fled from SOPA and PIPA when push came to shove, but they have ACTA to fall back on. Notably, few of them are speaking out against this even more dangerous treaty. Not surprisingly one of the lone voices of dissent is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who has spoken out against the treaty. "It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law," he wrote. "But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law . the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval." Even absent US participation, however, we should all be worried about the implications of this and other trade agreements on the global economy, the ripple effects of which would reach all of us regardless of geographical location. Remember, when one of these bills or trade agreements falls, another rises up to take its place. ACTA has been in the works for several years. SOPA almost passed into law unopposed. The threat to civil society isn't going away. If you care about freedom of speech, or if you have participated in SOPA protests, please help spread the word about ACTA. You can sign a petition to stop it here. For more information please visit: EFF's International Issue Page on ACTA: https://www.eff.org/issues/acta European Digital Rights' (EDRi) coverage here: www.edri.org/stopacta La Quadrature du Net's coverage here: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure's (FFII) blog on ACTA http://acta.ffii.org/ Twitter hash tags: #ACTA Twitter accounts: @StopActaNow @ffii @EDRi_org @laquadrature -- Thiru Balasubramaniam Geneva Representative Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) thiru at keionline.org Tel: +41 22 791 6727 Mobile: +41 76 508 0997 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.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 Tue Jan 24 11:53:02 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:53:02 +1300 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] Forbes: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad,Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, In relation to Michael's comments on the ACTA, there was a dynamic session on Intellectual Property: ACTA and other controversies in the Asia Pacific Regional IGF in 2011, visit http://2011.rigf.asia/program.php and you can access transcripts and a recorded video of the session. The description of the session on the website is as follows: " The Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement would be a treaty to put in place new and higher international standards on intellectual property enforcement. Apart from its obvious TRIPS-Plus nature and forceful use of ISPs as private police, ACTA reveals a couple of critically important aspects that deserve careful scrutiny from the perspective of Internet Governance. ACTA’s plurilateral and closed negotiation process directly goes against the multi-stakeholder and open and transparent participation principles developed for Internet Governance. ACTA’s narrow focus on intellectual property rights ignores human rights concerns, especially free speech and access to the Internet, that are essential in the information society. ACTA demonstrate the temptation to shift from the existing multilateral WIPO-WTO regime to a more restricted and opaque system to enforce the private exclusive rights on the global information network. In addition, other domestic (such as US Bill “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)”) or private (such as ICANN’s trademark measures in new gTLD process) enforcement measures for intellectual property will exert significant global impact. The session intends to have a vivid discussion on all these interesting issues in the most populous and economic-booming region of the world. " On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Internet governance by another name... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org > [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Thirukumaran > Balasubramaniam > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:36 AM > To: a2k at lists.keionline.org > Subject: [A2k] Forbes: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad,Just Wait Until You Meet > ACTA > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad- > just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/ > > E.D. Kain, Contributor > > I write tech policy, nerd culture, and our hyper-connected future. > > Tech > > > 1/23/2012 @ 11:10AM |40,241 views > > If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA > > > Image by mermadon 1967 via Flickr > > When sites like Wikipedia and Reddit banded together for a major blackout > January 18th, the impact was felt all the way to Washington D.C. The > blackout had lawmakers running from the controversial anti-piracy > legislation, SOPA and PIPA, which critics said threatened freedom of speech > online. > > Unfortunately for free-speech advocates, censorship is still a serious > threat. > > Few people have heard of ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, > but the provisions in the agreement are just as pernicious as anything we > saw in SOPA. Worse, the agreement spans virtually all of the countries in > the developed world, including all of the EU, the United States, > Switzerland > and Japan. > > Many of these countries have already signed or ratified it, and the cogs > are > still turning. The treaty has been secretly negotiated behind the scenes, > with unelected bureaucrats working closely with entertainment industry > lobbyists to craft the provisions in the treaty. The Bush administration > started the process, but the Obama administration has aggressively pursued > it. > > Indeed, we've already signed on to the treaty. All it needs now is Senate > ratification. The time to stop the treaty is now, and we may need a second > global internet blackout to call attention to it. > > Here's a quick video primer: > > > ACTA bypasses the sovereign laws of participating nations, forcing ISP's > across the globe to adopt these draconian measures. > > Worse, it goes much further than the internet, cracking down on generic > drugs and making food patents even more radical than they are by enforcing > a > global standard on seed patents that threatens local farmers and food > independence across the developed world. > > > > Despite ACTA's secrecy, criticism of the agreement has been widespread. > Countries like India and Brazil have been vocal opponents of the agreement, > claiming that it will do a great deal of harm to emerging economies. > > I'll have more on the agreement as it emerges. But to briefly sum up, ACTA > contains global IP provisions as restrictive or worse than anything > contained in SOPA and PIPA. > > . ACTA spans virtually all of the developed world, threatening the > freedom of the internet as well as access to medication and food. The > threat > is every bit as real for those countries not involved in the process as the > signatories themselves. > . ACTA has already been signed by many countries including the US, > but requires ratification in the EU parliament and the US Senate. > . The entire monstrosity has been negotiated behind closed doors and > kept secret from the public. Technocrats, beholden to the deep pockets of > the entertainment lobby, have masked the agreement behind the misnomer of > "anti-counterfeiting" when in fact it goes much, much further. If you > thought SOPA would break the internet, ACTA is much worse. And it could > become law across the global economy without so much as a murmur of > opposition. > > Worse still, it's not alone. Even more restrictive provisions exist in > another trade agreement currently being hammered out by various nations. > > According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, there are "other > plurilateral agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement > (TPP), which contains a chapter on IP enforcement that would have state > signatories adopt even more restrictive copyright measures than ACTA. > Similarly, negotiations over TPP are also held in secret and with little > oversight by the public or civil society. These initiatives, negotiated > without participation from civil society or the public, are an affront to a > democratic world order. EFF will remain vigilant against these > international > initiatives that threaten to choke off creativity, innovation, and free > speech, and will stand with EDRi, FFII, La Quadrature du Net and our other > EU fellow traveller organizations in their campaign to defeat ACTA in the > European Parliament in January." > > The global economy needs to be seen as separate from those nations which > comprise the global community of states. Civil society and a free global > economy are not the same thing as the bogeyman so often referred to simply > as "globalism." > > The free flow of goods and information is as much threatened by the global > state apparatus as it is assisted by it, and industries with a vested > interested in maintaining the status quo through draconian protectionist > measures are now threatening the last frontier of the truly free economy. > > By threatening the internet and free speech, the entertainment industry > threatens its own existence. But with only short-term profits in mind, this > will not deter them. > > Yes, our lawmakers fled from SOPA and PIPA when push came to shove, but > they > have ACTA to fall back on. Notably, few of them are speaking out against > this even more dangerous treaty. Not surprisingly one of the lone voices of > dissent is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) who has spoken out against the treaty. > > "It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade > agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement > requires no change in U.S. law," he wrote. "But regardless of whether the > agreement requires changes in U.S. law . the executive branch lacks > constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement > covering > issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent > congressional approval." > > Even absent US participation, however, we should all be worried about the > implications of this and other trade agreements on the global economy, the > ripple effects of which would reach all of us regardless of geographical > location. > > Remember, when one of these bills or trade agreements falls, another rises > up to take its place. ACTA has been in the works for several years. SOPA > almost passed into law unopposed. The threat to civil society isn't going > away. > > If you care about freedom of speech, or if you have participated in SOPA > protests, please help spread the word about ACTA. You can sign a petition > to > stop it here. > > For more information please visit: > > EFF's International Issue Page on ACTA: https://www.eff.org/issues/acta > > European Digital Rights' (EDRi) coverage here: www.edri.org/stopacta > > La Quadrature du Net's coverage here: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta > > Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure's (FFII) blog on ACTA > http://acta.ffii.org/ > > Twitter hash tags: #ACTA > > Twitter accounts: > > @StopActaNow > > @ffii > > @EDRi_org > > @laquadrature > > > -- > > Thiru Balasubramaniam > Geneva Representative > Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) > > thiru at keionline.org > > > > Tel: +41 22 791 6727 > Mobile: +41 76 508 0997 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k at lists.keionline.org > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 12:41:48 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:41:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC and IGF Open Consultations + MAG Meetings Message-ID: Dear all, We enter yet another significant year of IGF Open Consultations and MAG Meetings. Despite the MAG rotation and activities of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements, there is once again an important focus and agenda setting required for the Feburary 2012 meetings and any preparatory thereof. We may all want to address: - Will IGC be presenting its statement on the IGF 2011 in Nairobi and what we seek for the IGF 2012 in Azerbaijan? The process should be initiated now as always. - Suggestions for Main Sessions? Continue our emphasis on IG4D, consider Human Rights and the Internet and any other additions and changes? What is our collective view on this? - Any specific suggestions for IGC MAG members for the Feb 2012 meeting only as the future meetings will have a renewed MAG? -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jan 24 13:10:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:10:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC and IGF Open Consultations + MAG Meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8qoWILxQQvHPFA69@internetpolicyagency.com> at 22:41:48 on Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >- Any specific suggestions for IGC MAG members for the Feb 2012 >meeting only as the future meetings will have a renewed MAG? Perhaps you (or some of those here present who were at the CSTD-IGF-Renewal meeting recently) can help us with some background information. The MAG is there to advise the Sec Gen's Special Adviser. Do we know who Nitin's replacement is going to be and when he'll start in post (or is this all on hold until the CSTD renewal review finishes)? Does the current MAG have any role in advising the Sec Gen directly, about who might be appropriate to be appointed/rotated to MAG-2012? Presumably the MAG meeting in February will be chaired by someone, do we know who? Is it likely to be a representative of the 2012 hosts. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 04:11:21 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:11:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes Message-ID: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-and-why/ Those seeking to understand what kind of governance Internet users are willing to accept would do well to start by studying the engineering that establishes the network and how it is governed. The key protocols and standards that make the Internet work—that make the Internet the Internet–are developed and modified by voluntary committees of engineers, who meet virtually to debate the merits of new features, design changes, and other basic enhancements. The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas win through vigorous debate and testing. No one has seniority or a veto. There’s no influence peddling or lobbyists. The engineers are allergic to hypocrisy and public relations rhetoric. It’s a pure a form of democracy as has ever been implemented. And it works amazingly well. Today’s Internet activists have adopted those engineering principles as their political philosophy. In that sense, their core ideals have not changed much since 1996, when John Perry Barlow published his prophetic “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” in response to an equally ill-considered law that banned “indecent” content from the then-primitive World Wide Web. (The U.S. Supreme Court quickly threw it out as unconstitutional.) “We have no elected government,” Barlow wrote, “nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks.” -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jan 25 13:09:13 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:09:13 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google changes its privacy policies... Message-ID: <7402721920F14A2F9AB18414007535C8@UserVAIO> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/faq-googles-new-privacy-po licy/2012/01/24/gIQArw8GOQ_story.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Thu Jan 26 02:48:50 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F210562.4070507@cavebear.com> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-and-why/ > The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas > win through vigorous debate and testing. As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say that they are not industrial strength. Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy network "management" protocol. I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs that I "have destroyed DNS".) And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the juggling we see in mobile IP. We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that many people who participated both before and after that date feel that that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the work being done. (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and RFCs bear their names.) In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 26 03:09:25 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:09:25 +1100 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: <4F210562.4070507@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts. The result is evident. Nothing wrong with that - but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. > From: Karl Auerbach > Reply-To: , Karl Auerbach > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an >> d-why/ > >> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas >> win through vigorous debate and testing. > > As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest > that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and > left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say > that they are not industrial strength. > > Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of > technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. > > One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred > back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network > management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not > deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some > implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. > > For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop > to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. > > More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF > protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a > "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy > network "management" protocol. > > I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in > RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by > Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers > of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it > with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember > Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at > me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs > that I "have destroyed DNS".) > > And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several > competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong > technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI > connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger > than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum > algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, > no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. > > For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very > strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and > security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a > thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the > juggling we see in mobile IP. > > We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these > relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of > robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU > (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) > > None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical > merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political > forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. > > Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical > body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that > many people who participated both before and after that date feel that > that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the > work being done. > > (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies > measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and > RFCs bear their names.) > > In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. > > The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which > goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in > which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. > > In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - > issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in > complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. > > (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the > last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in > North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. > And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving > ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 03:59:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:29:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I > can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve > Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts. > The result is evident. > > Nothing wrong with that - I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even normatively, what to speak of practice. And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike what is the case in the IG space.) Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. parminder > but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely > on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. > > > > > >> From: Karl Auerbach >> Reply-To:, Karl Auerbach >> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes >> >> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an >>> d-why/ >>> >> >>> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas >>> win through vigorous debate and testing. >>> >> As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest >> that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and >> left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say >> that they are not industrial strength. >> >> Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of >> technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. >> >> One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred >> back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network >> management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not >> deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some >> implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. >> >> For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop >> to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. >> >> More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF >> protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a >> "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy >> network "management" protocol. >> >> I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in >> RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by >> Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers >> of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it >> with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember >> Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at >> me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs >> that I "have destroyed DNS".) >> >> And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several >> competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong >> technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI >> connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger >> than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum >> algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, >> no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. >> >> For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very >> strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and >> security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a >> thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the >> juggling we see in mobile IP. >> >> We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these >> relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of >> robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU >> (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) >> >> None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical >> merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political >> forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. >> >> Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical >> body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that >> many people who participated both before and after that date feel that >> that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the >> work being done. >> >> (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies >> measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and >> RFCs bear their names.) >> >> In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. >> >> The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which >> goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in >> which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. >> >> In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - >> issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in >> complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. >> >> (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the >> last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in >> North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. >> And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving >> ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) >> >> --karl-- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 04:23:50 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:23:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> References: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F211BA6.1040101@gmail.com> It is crazy that an explicit or implicit efficiency standard was used to argue against the UN, or the computer professional mantra of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (forgetting the other one of course, GIGO). Sure it is a tedious process in the UN, but warts and all it does build legitimacy - and is more democratic (if not as contestable as we would like). One may not like the state or intergovernmental institutions, but the aspiration for such organisations (whatever the form of dialogue) is for some entity to rise above the fray and balance interests, not least systemic interests. Multi-stakeholder governance can still be a good idea, but when one looks at the deference shown to large corporations it is worrying. And they have many proxies in "civil society"... in the environmental movement they are called Greenwashers... and so it is no wonder that some developing countries have emphasized Enhanced Cooperation. And amongst civil society, well there was far too often a tendency to lowest common denominator positions instead of a values based approach that allows lines to be drawn into the sand. The health community has a strong radical element that focuses on access issues that "mediates" the conflict with more reformist elements - and often they do draw lines in the sand. What is surprising in the health community is the extent to which on many issues there is concordance between the North and the South at least on diagnosis and often on prescription. And MSG was sought as a solution in a process that was instigated by some of the rich countries to deflect the focus on CIR into some softer process. As an aside, looking at it from my pov, even the fetish with competition falls by the wayside as obsequiousness takes a hold (I say fetish because there is a strange tolerance of monopolists, including monopolistic use of Intellectual Property). It is almost as if the alternate economic ideas of the brilliant JK Galbraith (countervailing forces) were not relevant. The system needs a healthy antagonism, but not simply in that post-modern genre of "giving voice" but more importantly in the shaping of the contradictions that really matter... On 2012/01/26 10:59 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I >> can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve >> Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts. >> The result is evident. >> >> Nothing wrong with that - > I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the > despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) > standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such > political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for > this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to > explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. > However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society > governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even > normatively, what to speak of practice. > > And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of > our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing > business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally > accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by > global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike > what is the case in the IG space.) > > Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a > feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy > movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by > itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. > > parminder > >> but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely >> on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: Karl Auerbach >>> Reply-To:, Karl Auerbach >>> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes >>> >>> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an >>>> d-why/ >>>> >>> >>>> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas >>>> win through vigorous debate and testing. >>>> >>> As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest >>> that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and >>> left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say >>> that they are not industrial strength. >>> >>> Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of >>> technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. >>> >>> One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred >>> back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network >>> management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not >>> deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some >>> implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. >>> >>> For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop >>> to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. >>> >>> More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF >>> protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a >>> "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy >>> network "management" protocol. >>> >>> I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in >>> RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by >>> Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers >>> of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it >>> with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember >>> Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at >>> me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs >>> that I "have destroyed DNS".) >>> >>> And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several >>> competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong >>> technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI >>> connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger >>> than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum >>> algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, >>> no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. >>> >>> For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very >>> strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and >>> security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a >>> thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the >>> juggling we see in mobile IP. >>> >>> We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these >>> relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of >>> robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU >>> (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) >>> >>> None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical >>> merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political >>> forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. >>> >>> Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical >>> body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that >>> many people who participated both before and after that date feel that >>> that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the >>> work being done. >>> >>> (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies >>> measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and >>> RFCs bear their names.) >>> >>> In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. >>> >>> The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which >>> goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in >>> which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. >>> >>> In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - >>> issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in >>> complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. >>> >>> (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the >>> last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in >>> North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. >>> And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving >>> ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) >>> >>> --karl-- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jan 26 04:30:09 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:30:09 +1100 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Trouble is, Parminder, that with Microsoft¹s dominance of operating systems at that time (over 10 years ago), any spam solution without them on board was a waste of time. But the trouble also was, the spam solutions they were prepared to accept were also a waste of time... That¹s politics, and there are lots of examples of this sort of useless compromise to bring everyone on board in all areas of politics, both before and after and with or without multistakeholderism. My point is that pretending IETF is above politics is simply not true. From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:29:32 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I > can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve > Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts. > The result is evident. > > Nothing wrong with that - I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even normatively, what to speak of practice. And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike what is the case in the IG space.) Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. parminder > > but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely > on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. > > > > > > >> >> From: Karl Auerbach >> Reply-To: >> , Karl Auerbach >> >> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes >> >> On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >>> >>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-a>>> n >>> d-why/ >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas >>> win through vigorous debate and testing. >>> >>> >> >> >> As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest >> that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and >> left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say >> that they are not industrial strength. >> >> Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of >> technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. >> >> One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred >> back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network >> management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not >> deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some >> implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. >> >> For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop >> to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. >> >> More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF >> protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a >> "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy >> network "management" protocol. >> >> I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in >> RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by >> Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers >> of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it >> with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember >> Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at >> me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs >> that I "have destroyed DNS".) >> >> And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several >> competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong >> technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI >> connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger >> than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum >> algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, >> no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. >> >> For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very >> strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and >> security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a >> thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the >> juggling we see in mobile IP. >> >> We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these >> relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of >> robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU >> (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) >> >> None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical >> merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political >> forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. >> >> Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical >> body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that >> many people who participated both before and after that date feel that >> that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the >> work being done. >> >> (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies >> measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and >> RFCs bear their names.) >> >> In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. >> >> The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which >> goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in >> which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. >> >> In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - >> issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in >> complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. >> >> (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the >> last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in >> North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. >> And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving >> ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) >> >> --karl-- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jan 26 04:56:00 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:56:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> References: <4F2115F4.8050201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1377904034.25415.1327571760774.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m16> Dear Parminder and members of the list I understand and support most of your critics as well as I thank Karl for his analysis of "normative" processes that took place in the IP era and field. I was involved in the early 90ties in telecom normative processes headed by the ITU-T (mainly SDH and Optical fiber transmission). This was at the (finishing) era when we were given sufficient time to exchange and improve technical proposals in a realistc way because we'd a solid knowledge due to our (generally long) experience in real networking and network evolution.  This was the "good time" for engineers and network architects that led i.a. to valid protocols in network management. But the then recently privatized sector (where ITU was a catalysator) soon made an end to this "intellectual" and iterative process. With the support of ITU, this "too long normative process" was replaced it by a "fast track" one, and the growing role of the private sector members fostered by the ITU itself did the rest for killing such a technical and engineering "forum" (it was also very convivial since some of us became friends over the time). Objective : the private sector needs a more rapid pace for new  technology generation ... and for generating more revenues. With the blessing of the ITU. That's why I come back to¨Parminders mail :  We should also be "alarmed" about the ITU -still an intergovernmental UN agency- and question the predominent role and place that the private sector is playing therein.  This shift goes beyond telecoms since this UN agency is officially in charge of the WSIS, a process that is supposed to address society issues and  give them a "consensual" response. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT - France > Message du 26/01/12 10:00 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF efforts, I can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated IETF efforts. The result is evident. Nothing wrong with that - I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) standard recognised.)  Private players should be denied any such political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even normatively, what to speak of practice. > > And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike what is the case in the IG space.) > > Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. > > parminder > > but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. From: Karl Auerbach Reply-To: , Karl Auerbach Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 To: Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an d-why/ The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas win through vigorous debate and testing. As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I can attest that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has withered and left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic and say that they are not industrial strength. Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. One of the most overt instances of politics over technology occurred back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, but not deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but had some implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained as a sop to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. More recently, but still in the network management path, the NETCONF protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it is a dandy network "management" protocol. I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the higher layers of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and replace it with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I remember Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing down at me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of those RFCs that I "have destroyed DNS".) And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly strong technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI connection-less network layer protocol with an address space much larger than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent checksum algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that technology, no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is really a very strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of performance and security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it used a thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the juggling we see in mobile IP. We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of these relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a kind of robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by political forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a technical body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I think that many people who participated both before and after that date feel that that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative quality of the work being done. (It does not help either that the management of many tech companies measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet Drafts" and RFCs bear their names.) In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the IETF. The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in which goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned - and in which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is different - issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think that the last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a week in North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's software. And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a proving ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter 1990's) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 05:39:23 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:09:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F212D5B.4010501@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 January 2012 03:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Trouble is, Parminder, that with Microsoft's dominance of operating > systems at that time (over 10 years ago), any spam solution without > them on board was a waste of time. > > But the trouble also was, the spam solutions they were prepared to > accept were also a waste of time... > > That's politics, and there are lots of examples of this sort of > useless compromise to bring everyone on board in all areas of > politics, both before and after and with or without multistakeholderism. > > My point is that pretending IETF is above politics is simply not true. Ian, I do understand that you were pointing to a specific fact. My mail was not directed against your views. I just took the opportunity to reassert my issues with a certain kind of governance model... parminder > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:29:32 +0530 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF > efforts, I > can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve > Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated > IETF efforts. > The result is evident. > > Nothing wrong with that - > > I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the > despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) > standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such > political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for > this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to > explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. > However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society > governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even > normatively, what to speak of practice. > > And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of > our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing > business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally > accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by > global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike > what is the case in the IG space.) > > Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a > feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy > movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by > itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. > > parminder > > > but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely > on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. > > > > > > > > From: Karl Auerbach > > Reply-To: > , Karl Auerbach > > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 > To: > > Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an > d-why/ > > > > > > > > The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. > The best ideas > win through vigorous debate and testing. > > > > > As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I > can attest > that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has > withered and > left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic > and say > that they are not industrial strength. > > Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of > technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. > > One of the most overt instances of politics over technology > occurred > back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network > management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, > but not > deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but > had some > implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. > > For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained > as a sop > to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. > > More recently, but still in the network management path, the > NETCONF > protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a > "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it > is a dandy > network "management" protocol. > > I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in > RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by > Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the > higher layers > of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and > replace it > with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I > remember > Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing > down at > me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of > those RFCs > that I "have destroyed DNS".) > > And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several > competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly > strong > technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI > connection-less network layer protocol with an address space > much larger > than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent > checksum > algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that > technology, > no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. > > For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is > really a very > strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of > performance and > security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it > used a > thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the > juggling we see in mobile IP. > > We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of > these > relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a > kind of > robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU > (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) > > None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical > merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by > political > forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. > > Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a > technical > body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I > think that > many people who participated both before and after that date > feel that > that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative > quality of the > work being done. > > (It does not help either that the management of many tech > companies > measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet > Drafts" and > RFCs bear their names.) > > In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the > IETF. > > The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in > which > goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned > - and in > which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. > > In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is > different - > issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in > complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. > > (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think > that the > last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a > week in > North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's > software. > And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a > proving > ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter > 1990's) > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 06:07:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:37:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2133F3.1020200@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 January 2012 03:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Trouble is, Parminder, that with Microsoft's dominance of operating > systems at that time (over 10 years ago), any spam solution without > them on board was a waste of time. Also, such monopolistic dominance, as you was the root of the original problem, has to be addressed by policy and law, and if needed be broken. This is the approach that economic law has traditionally taken. Where would the information revolution be were it not for the competition enforcing breakups of IBM (separating software from hardware) and of AT & T? As for Microsoft's monopoly in OS space, I think the new networked era monopolies like of Google and Facebook are much more pernicious. And we are only at the start of the era when we would need to get any policy about the digital space first cleared if not written by them. Only last year Google co-wrote the Net neutrality law for the most powerful government in the world. The main problem today with the world which is being economically and socially integrated is the absence of concomitant political institutions. The struggle to get the right institutions, and then to get them right, will be a long and difficult one. But we must start with the right democratic principles, which inter alia makes a clear difference between pubic and private interests, and prioritise the interests and perspectives of the more marginalised over the most powerful. parminder > > But the trouble also was, the spam solutions they were prepared to > accept were also a waste of time... > > That's politics, and there are lots of examples of this sort of > useless compromise to bring everyone on board in all areas of > politics, both before and after and with or without multistakeholderism. > > My point is that pretending IETF is above politics is simply not true. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:29:32 +0530 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > > > On Thursday 26 January 2012 01:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Backing up Karl's point - as someone involved in anti spam IETF > efforts, I > can assure you that it was pragmatic politics (the need to involve > Microsoft) rather than merit or best solutions, than dominated > IETF efforts. > The result is evident. > > Nothing wrong with that - > > I think everything is wrong with this. (This brings to my mind all the > despicable things that Microsoft did for getting the OOXML (non) > standard recognised.) Private players should be denied any such > political power, and there should be enough checks in the systems for > this purpose. Traditionally democratic governance systems try to > explicitly keep many insitutional checks in place for this purpose. > However, evidently, the new post-democratic information society > governance systems find such 'accommodations' quite acceptable even > normatively, what to speak of practice. > > And such a 'pro-powerful' model is being exported to more and areas of > our social life. For instance, one notices with alarm the growing > business sector influence in WHO, which is now being institutionally > accommodated ( BTW, which is right now being strongly resisted by > global and national civil society actors in the health area, unlike > what is the case in the IG space.) > > Doing governance with the prior accent of the most powerful is a > feudal age idea which one thought was superseded by the democracy > movement. But multistakeholderism as a governance system, in and by > itself, seems to taking us back to the dark ages. > > parminder > > > but that the suggestion that IETF operates purely > on technical grounds with no other considerations, is nonsense. > > > > > > > > From: Karl Auerbach > > Reply-To: > , Karl Auerbach > > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:48:50 -0800 > To: > > Subject: Re: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes > > On 01/25/2012 01:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-an > d-why/ > > > > > > > > The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. > The best ideas > win through vigorous debate and testing. > > > > > As a person who runs a company that does protocol testing I > can attest > that the notion of testing protocols is a notion that has > withered and > left us with many code bases that are... let's be euphemistic > and say > that they are not industrial strength. > > Those who have spent decades in the IETF know that the notion of > technical meritocracy has sometimes been a facade. > > One of the most overt instances of politics over technology > occurred > back in the mid 1980's when there were three different network > management protocols on the table. One (HEMS) was elegant, > but not > deeply implemented. Another (SGMP/SNMP) was ugly and weak but > had some > implementations. The last was CMIP from ISO/OSI. > > For political reasons HEMS was sent to die. CMIP was retained > as a sop > to the then growing GOSIP, MAP, TOP bandwagon for ISO/OSI. > > More recently, but still in the network management path, the > NETCONF > protocol has had to wear the intentionally deceiving dressing of a > "configuration" protocol even though everyone admits that it > is a dandy > network "management" protocol. > > I know from personal experience that when we standardized (in > RFC1001/1002) what eventually became the CIFS protocol (used by > Microsoft systems today) that because of pressure from the > higher layers > of the IETF we had to throw out a very elegant design and > replace it > with a much less elegant and scalable design based on DNS. (I > remember > Paul Mockepetris once standing on a table, glowering, pointing > down at > me, and in a deep and strong voice declaring that because of > those RFCs > that I "have destroyed DNS".) > > And we can go back to the beginning of IPv6 - there were several > competing proposals on the table. One that had particularly > strong > technical merits was TUBA - it was essentially the ISO/OSI > connection-less network layer protocol with an address space > much larger > than IPv6 and many other very nice aspects - such as a decent > checksum > algorithm. But it was ISO/OSI and even today much of that > technology, > no matter how well conceived, is still anathema. > > For instance, in IPv4/v6 there is "mobile IP" - which is > really a very > strange kind of triangular routing with all kinds of > performance and > security issues. ISO/OSI had a different method for this - it > used a > thing called a "session" layer that makes unnecessary all of the > juggling we see in mobile IP. > > We still see the relics of the IP versus ISO/OSI wars - one of > these > relics affects internet governance directly in the form of a > kind of > robot-like automatic rejection of anything associated with the ITU > (which was one of the engines behind ISO/OSI.) > > None of this is to say that the IETF and internet ignore technical > merit. But to say that the IETF's output is not affected by > political > forces would be to say something that is not fully accurate. > > Back around 1990 the IETF faced a decision - was it to be a > technical > body or become a standards body. It chose the latter. And I > think that > many people who participated both before and after that date > feel that > that change marked a distinct reduction in the innovative > quality of the > work being done. > > (It does not help either that the management of many tech > companies > measures aspiring engineers by counting how many "Internet > Drafts" and > RFCs bear their names.) > > In general internet governance ought not to try to emulate the > IETF. > > The IETF is a relatively objective technical world, a world in > which > goals and backgrounds of the participants are roughly aligned > - and in > which merit of solutions is, over time, somewhat measurable. > > In nearly every regard the world of internet governance is > different - > issues are more subjective, the goals of participants are often in > complete opposition, and measures of merit are hard to come by. > > (BTW - for those of us interested in internet history, I think > that the > last TCP/IP "backoff" occurred in 1990 when we all met for a > week in > North Andover, Mass. at FTP Software and broke one another's > software. > And the replacement, the Interop show network because less a > proving > ground a more of a marketing network somewhere in the latter > 1990's) > > --karl-- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jan 26 08:28:26 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:28:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:11 AM, McTim wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2012/01/25/who-really-stopped-sopa-and-why/ > > Those seeking to understand what kind of governance Internet users are > willing to accept would do well to start by studying the engineering > that establishes the network and how it is governed. The key > protocols and standards that make the Internet work—that make the > Internet the Internet–are developed and modified by voluntary > committees of engineers, who meet virtually to debate the merits of > new features, design changes, and other basic enhancements. > > The engineering task forces are meritocratic and open. The best ideas > win through vigorous debate and testing. No one has seniority or a > veto. There’s no influence peddling or lobbyists. The engineers > are allergic to hypocrisy and public relations rhetoric. It’s a pure > a form of democracy as has ever been implemented. And it works > amazingly well. As Karl points out, the above is not always true. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases (where the IETF philosophy might be summed up as "let a thousand protocols bloom" & "let the market decide"), it's true that every vendor idea is revised based on technical input and generally allowed to continue to fruition, with the result being hundreds of working groups and thousands of new internet drafts every year. Since generally everything gets to move forward, the eventual real world implications are considered to be the fallout of market decisions to use or not use a given technical protocol, and hence not a subject for the IETF's concern. However, it is in cases where there needs to be a small or unique solution set to a problem where things get interesting. In the ideal world, the IETF first writes clear technical documents stating the requirements for the chosen protocol (without consideration of the potential candidates), and then has a technology bake-off with the various proposals to select the best fit based on rough consensus and running code. What actually happens can be quite convoluted, and while I will say that while it is generally a fair and reasonable process, it is neither free of political/commercial considerations nor does it always maintain the goals of openness and transparency that one might desire. Selecting one protocol over another turns out to be very difficult, and that's likely one of the major reasons that the IETF avoids making such decisions unless absolutely necessary. The result is that we have many, many competing standards adopted which then have to prove their actual worth in the darwinian marketplace. It is left to the reader whether selection via marketplace should be considered a "pure form of democracy" or not. /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 iza at anr.org Thu Jan 26 08:55:52 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:55:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 09:04:02 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:04:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wondered what had happened. The offer is still there if a remote participant can help :-) Deirdre On 26 January 2012 09:55, 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 > > -- “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 rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Jan 26 13:50:42 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:50:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 16:06:32 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:06:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI Wants New App to Wiretap the Internet - reply by February 10 Message-ID: <4F21C058.2000307@gmail.com> [If this were a developing country...?] Published on Thursday, January 26, 2012 by Common Dreams FBI Wants New App to Wiretap the Internet 'Scraping' social network postings including Facebook and Twitter - Common Dreams staff https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/26-3 The FBI's Strategic Information and Operations Center (SOIC) posted a 'Request for Information (RFI)' online last week seeking companies to build a social network monitoring system for the FBI. The 12-page document (.pdf) spells out what the bureau wants from such a system and invites potential contractors to reply by February 10, 2012. It says the application should provide information about possible domestic and global threats superimposed onto maps "using mash-up technology". It says the application should collect "open source" information and have the ability to: * Provide an automated search and scrape capability of social networks including Facebook and Twitter. * Allow users to create new keyword searches. * Display different levels of threats as alerts on maps, possibly using color coding to distinguish priority. Google Maps 3D and Yahoo Maps are listed among the "preferred" mapping options. * Plot a wide range of domestic and global terror data. * Immediately translate foreign language tweets into English. It notes that agents need to "locate bad actors...and analyze their movements, vulnerabilities, limitations, and possible adverse actions". It also states that the bureau will use social media to create "pattern-of-life matrices" -- presumably logs of targets' daily routines -- that will aid law enforcement in planning operations. * * * /New Scientist/ magazine *reports* today: "These tools that mine open source data and presumably store it for a very long time, do away with that kind of privacy. I worry about the effect of that on free speech in the US" -- Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier FoundationThe US Federal Bureau of Investigation has quietly released details of plans to continuously monitor the global output of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, offering a rare glimpse into an activity that the FBI and other government agencies are reluctant to discuss publicly. The plans show that the bureau believes it can use information pulled from social media sites to better respond to crises, and maybe even to foresee them. [...] The use of the term "publicly available" suggests that Facebook and Twitter may be able to exempt themselves from the monitoring by making their posts private. But the desire of the US government to watch everyone may still have an unwelcome impact, warns Jennifer Lynch at the *Electronic Frontier Foundation* , a San Francisco-based advocacy group. Lynch says that many people post to social media in the expectation that only their friends and followers are reading, which gives them "the sense of freedom to say what they want without worrying too much about recourse," says Lynch. "But these tools that mine open source data and presumably store it for a very long time, do away with that kind of privacy. I worry about the effect of that on free speech in the US". * * * The BBC *reports* : "Social networks are about connecting people with other people - if one person is the target of police monitoring, there will be a dragnet effect in which dozens, even hundreds, of innocent users also come under surveillance" -- Gus Hosein, Privacy InternationalThe FBI issued the request three weeks after the US Department of Homeland Security released a separate report into the privacy implications of monitoring social media websites. It justified the principle of using information that users have provided and not opted to make private. "Information posted to social media websites is publicly accessible and voluntarily generated. Thus the opportunity not to provide information exists prior to the informational post by the user," it says.[...] The London-based campaign group, *Privacy International* , said it was worried about the consequences of such activities. "Social networks are about connecting people with other people - if one person is the target of police monitoring, there will be a dragnet effect in which dozens, even hundreds, of innocent users also come under surveillance," said Gus Hosein, the group's executive director. "It is not necessarily the case that the more information law enforcement officers have, the safer we will be. "Police may well find themselves overwhelmed by a flood of personal information, information that is precious to those it concerns but useless for the purposes of crime prevention." * * * The /Fierce Government/ website *reports* on 'refining raw social media into intelligence gold': The notion that the future can be predicted by trends expressed in collective social media output is one that has gained increased currency in academic writing. A January analysis (.pdf) published by the Rand Corp. of tweets using the #IranElection hashtag during 2009 and early 2010 found a correlation between appearance of swear words and protests. The study also found a shift that indicated the protest movement was losing momentum when swearing shifted from curses at the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to curses at an opposition figure. A March 2011 paper published in the /Journal of Computational Science/ (abstract ) also posited that movements of the Dow Jones Industrial Average could be predicted to an accuracy of 86.7 percent by changes of national mood reflected in Tweets. According to /The Economist/, British hedge fund Derwent Capital Markets has licensed the algorithm to guide the investments of a $41 million fund. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Jan 26 16:52:51 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:22:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web Message-ID: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Dear all, Twitter just announced that they will soon roll out country-level masking of content. http://goo.gl/icmIu This seems to be yet another pointer to the increasing balkanization of the Web. So, different users see individualized search results based on personal data, they see different maps depending on which country they are in, they may or may not view a video depending on which country they are in, and now they will see different tweets depending on their country. In a recent symposium on social media and freedom of expression, Michael Anti, the Chinese journalist and blogger, noted how increasingly one needs a visa (think circumvention tools) to access the 'international' Internet. However, we're heading to a future where there is no one 'international' Internet. Unless of course, we're already living in that future. Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 26 17:34:02 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:34:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service Message-ID: <05FD5FE8B21146B88F45A1E1DC6169A6@UserVAIO> Privacy policy as a Peanuts cartoon? M -----Original Message----- From: Google [mailto:privacy-noreply at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:39 PM To: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service Is this email not displaying properly? View it in your browser. Dear Google user, We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google. We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012. One policy, one Google experience _____ Easy to work across Google Tailored for you Easy to share and collaborate Easy to work across Google Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease. Tailored for you If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries - or tailor your search results - based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster. Easy to share and collaborate When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors. _____ Protecting your privacy hasn't changed Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests). Understand how Google uses your data If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow Got questions? We got answers. Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.) _____ Notice of Change March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 22:26:01 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:26:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/how-it%E2%80%99s-evolving/future-scenarios ISOC has done some extensive thinking/modeling around this issue. rgds, McTim On 1/26/12, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear all, > Twitter just announced that they will soon roll out country-level > masking of content. > > http://goo.gl/icmIu > > This seems to be yet another pointer to the increasing balkanization of > the Web. > > So, different users see individualized search results based on personal > data, they see different maps depending on which country they are in, > they may or may not view a video depending on which country they are in, > and now they will see different tweets depending on their country. > > In a recent symposium on social media and freedom of expression, Michael > Anti, the Chinese journalist and blogger, noted how increasingly one > needs a visa (think circumvention tools) to access the 'international' > Internet. However, we're heading to a future where there is no one > 'international' Internet. Unless of course, we're already living in > that future. > > Regards, > Pranesh > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Jan 26 22:51:50 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:51:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would oppose a right to ACCESS the "Internet" -- most people naturally think of the internet as international and various parties, including but not limited to Google and Twitter, and putting more and more structural barriers in place to accessing the free international internet. Paul Lehto, J.D. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:26 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/how-it%E2%80%99s-evolving/future-scenarios > > ISOC has done some extensive thinking/modeling around this issue. > > rgds, > > McTim > > On 1/26/12, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > Dear all, > > Twitter just announced that they will soon roll out country-level > > masking of content. > > > > http://goo.gl/icmIu > > > > This seems to be yet another pointer to the increasing balkanization of > > the Web. > > > > So, different users see individualized search results based on personal > > data, they see different maps depending on which country they are in, > > they may or may not view a video depending on which country they are in, > > and now they will see different tweets depending on their country. > > > > In a recent symposium on social media and freedom of expression, Michael > > Anti, the Chinese journalist and blogger, noted how increasingly one > > needs a visa (think circumvention tools) to access the 'international' > > Internet. However, we're heading to a future where there is no one > > 'international' Internet. Unless of course, we're already living in > > that future. > > > > Regards, > > Pranesh > > > > -- > > Pranesh Prakash > > Programme Manager > > Centre for Internet and Society > > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jan 27 00:44:27 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:14:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] another interesting IG piece in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2239BB.1090807@itforchange.net> On Thursday 26 January 2012 06:58 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > Selecting one protocol over another turns out to be very difficult, > and that's likely one of the major reasons that the IETF avoids making > such decisions unless absolutely necessary. The result is that we have > many, many competing standards adopted which then have to prove their > actual worth in the darwinian marketplace. It is left to the reader > whether selection via marketplace should be considered a "pure form > of democracy" or not. > No, it is not. . Social Darwinism has very negative connotations and is kind of quite the opposite to democratic ideals. Unless of course the information society discourse and social constructs overtake our traditional democratic sensibilities, of which there is a well founded fear that they may. Technical standards need to be developed with just public interest in view, which may involve listening to big market players but not acceding to their partisan views. Markets choosing the right technical standards is almost always an euphemism for the big market players choosing them. Parminder > /John > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 27 04:11:14 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:11:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: In message , at 22:51:50 on Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Paul Lehto writes >This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would oppose a >right to ACCESS the "Internet" Isn't there a danger of confusing access to the Internet with access to particular content sites on the Internet? > -- most people naturally think of the internet as international and >various parties, including but not limited to Google and Twitter, and >putting more and more structural barriers in place to accessing the >free international internet To use their own example, they'd respect the law in Germany, regarding pro-Nazi content, by withholding it from Germany rather than removing it from the whole world. That retains the individual's right of freedom on *speech*, but restricts the right to *listen* in some places (but only because of the law in that place). eBay has being doing this kind of thing for years - selectively restricting prohibited products depending on the country it's offered for sale. And all countries (even the USA) have things they wouldn't want you to tweet about. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 08:30:33 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:00:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) Message-ID: Hi there, Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion. Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the recent online blackout activities: http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA. Best, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 27 08:33:45 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:33:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 22:51:50 on > Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Paul Lehto writes > > This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would oppose a >> right to ACCESS the "Internet" >> > > Isn't there a danger of confusing access to the Internet with access to > particular content sites on the Internet? > > > Roland, I never understood the Chinese/Indian approach to censoring the Internet as creating "access to the Internet" that is the same, just without access to "particular content sites". Given people's normal (adult) expectations, I think the term "internet access" becomes deceptive and misleading when access to entire classes of sites on the internet are restricted or forbidden (for adults who are not at work for an employer, etc) > -- most people naturally think of the internet as international and >> various parties, including but not limited to Google and Twitter, and >> putting more and more structural barriers in place to accessing the free >> international internet >> > > To use their own example, they'd respect the law in Germany, regarding > pro-Nazi content, by withholding it from Germany rather than removing it > from the whole world. > And here I thought that Internet censorship in China and things like that were a problem, and now an internet policy expert seems to be reassuring me that all is well when companies outside Germany, or China, voluntarily give extraterritorial effect to German or Chinese laws. Isn't this a problem when the USA gets extraterritorial effect to its laws? Yes, I realize that under your example the law has not succeeded in changing the net for the whole entire world, but the law has had an effect, voluntary or compulsory, on a business that is likely not within the proper jurisdictional reach of Germany or China. (Or if Google is present in both countries, some other entity like Twitter or something else would not be, and my reply would apply here with full force because such a company would be giving extra effect to a nation's laws beyond that which they could obtain in their courts, at least under our view here that extraterritorial effect to laws, and censorship, are both problems). > > That retains the individual's right of freedom on *speech*, but restricts > the right to *listen* in some places (but only because of the law in that > place). > The right to speak, or scream, in the wilderness where no one has the correlative right to listen or hear can easily be, and regularly would be, an empty right. > > eBay has being doing this kind of thing for years - selectively > restricting prohibited products depending on the country it's offered for > sale. And all countries (even the USA) have things they wouldn't want you > to tweet about. > Products are quite distinct from speech. The advertising of products can be regulated without implicating free speech rights in the usual case. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jan 27 09:00:01 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:00:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <80r2$Xfh3qIPFAzr@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 08:33:45 on Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Paul Lehto writes >> This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would >> oppose a right to ACCESS the "Internet" > Isn't there a danger of confusing access to the Internet with access > to particular content sites on the Internet? >Roland, I never understood the Chinese/Indian approach to censoring the >Internet as creating "access to the Internet" that is the same, just >without access to "particular content sites".  If you are saying they have firewalls which deny access to specific sites, it's a prohibition on accessing content. The users still have access to "The Internet" for those sites which are not prohibited. Contrast that with my earlier example which is prisoners in goal (in many countries) who are not allowed Internet Access at all, not even to highly approved content. >Given people's normal (adult) expectations, I think the term "internet >access" becomes deceptive and misleading when access to entire classes >of sites on the internet are restricted or forbidden (for adults who >are not at work for an employer, etc) Perhaps you can expand upon what you mean by "entire classes of site". And why employees are allowed to view them, but individual members of the public aren't. >> -- most people naturally think of the internet as international >> and various parties, including but not limited to Google and >> Twitter, and putting more and more structural barriers in place >> to accessing the free international internet > To use their own example, they'd respect the law in Germany, > regarding pro-Nazi content, by withholding it from Germany rather > than removing it from the whole world. > >And here I thought that Internet censorship in China and things like >that were a problem, and now an internet policy expert seems to be >reassuring me that all is well when companies outside Germany, or >China, voluntarily give extraterritorial effect to German or Chinese >laws. I'm afraid you may be confused about what is proposed. The idea is not to prevent the whole world viewing content prohibited in Germany or China. Quite the opposite. In only limiting access to persons in those countries there's no "extraterritorial" effect at all. The effect is only on German and Chinese territory. >Isn't this a problem when the USA gets extraterritorial effect to >its laws?  The USA has an unfortunate reputation for appearing to want to impose its values on people where ever they are. The proposals I've been commenting on would affect only such content delivered to the USA. Everyone else would still receive it. >The right to speak, or scream, in the wilderness where no one has the >correlative right to listen or hear can easily be, and regularly would >be, an empty right.  There isn't a proposal that "no-one" should hear. Just those people in countries where your words are prohibited. Yes, that's local censorship, but such things exist and are widely accepted in the real world. For example, I understand that in the USA it's not permitted to make threats against the President. > eBay has being doing this kind of thing for years - selectively > restricting prohibited products depending on the country it's > offered for sale. And all countries (even the USA) have things they > wouldn't want you to tweet about. >Products are quite distinct from speech.  The advertising of products >can be regulated without implicating free speech rights in the usual >case.  The speech in the case of eBay is my advertisement for sale. Yes, I'm aware that "commercial speech" (by companies) is not so well protected. But surely if I have something for sale, it's censorship to prevent my advertisement being heard? -- 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 doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 09:13:12 2012 From: doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com (ricardo ruiz) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, i.e. Sorry for the poor english and best from northestearn Brazil, Ruiz 2012/1/27, Ginger Paque : > Hi there, > > Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern > communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He > argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among > others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and > congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, > I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we > have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are > preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into > consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: > it allows for full multi-party discussion. > > Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to improve > our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved > e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the > potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the > recent online blackout activities: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload > > Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA. > > Best, Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > -- ----------- :(){ :|:& };: Unix Shell Forkbomb (2002) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 27 09:17:59 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:17:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aldo reminds us of important, if not controlling at times, aspects of communications, and how media or mediated structures fundamentally affect the nature and quality of discourse that results from those structures. An email is different than a letter in numerous respects (while similar in more respects), and those who are concerned with the quality of discourse and communication do well to keep these differences in mind. This all seemed to more or less start with the work of the Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan ("the medium is the message") and learning in this area of media studies has continued to expand since McLuhan's seminal work around the 1960s or so. There is a quite proper concern with anti-censorship, i.e. NOT having the government-as-master. But particularly here in the USA, and I suspect elsewhere as well, there's a palpable over-reaction via cases like Citizens United, holding that the government has no power to structure, much less restrict, corporate speech on campaigns. This prevents the government from exercising what I would call SERVANT-leadership (as opposed to "master" leadership). Servant leadership would "impose" quite neutral structuring devices, such as perhaps the Chinese university example, or a western "dialoging" structure, in which the collaboration is designed to ensure that all the voices can be heard so that a wise decision is more likely to result from all hearing all the voices, concerns and perspectives. Thus, based on the overriding (when in conflict) need of the listeners to be properly informed, just as with presentations to governmental bodies, time might be somewhat limited for each speaker so that they do not impinge on the rights of other speakers to be heard. In the USA via Citizens United's case, that ability to impose a neutral, structuring "servant"-type style to the discussion or debate has been eliminated out of the fear of government-as-master and unlimited corporate speech has been constitutionally protected. But this means that a corporation or rich person with enough money can completely dominate the discussion on television by buying up all or most of the available television advertising time, leaving no room for other speakers. The inability of the government to impose any limits on corporations emanates from a fear of government as master, but in throwing out the government as master bathwater, they have also thrown out the government-as-servant baby, and chaos reigns. The real trick is how to ensure that those in a position of leadership and thus able to structure discussions or debates do not abuse their servant-authority and reach into the area of being "masters" instead of servants. I agree with Aldo that in numerous cases, imposition of limits to the length of comments to ones equivalent to tweets is overly restrictive and systematically strips out nuance. This is an interesting area and what is to be valued are real servants of public dialog who specialize in teasing out the wisdom of the group via appropriately structured dialog processes. This can happen online at times, but ultimately there are some things that are much better done in person. (Obviously that can not always be achieved due to expense and distance) Paul Lehto, J.D. paul On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi there, > > Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern > communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He > argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among > others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and > congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, > I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we > have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are > preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into > consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: > it allows for full multi-party discussion. > > Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to > improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved > e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the > potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the > recent online blackout activities: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload > > Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA. > > Best, Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.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 > > -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 09:18:33 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:18:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Dear Roland, I liked your distinction between the 'right to speak' and the 'right to listen'. I am also concerned about something practical with which the technical people might be able to help - in the way that Vint Cerf suggested in his original article. If content is blocked, to my understanding the user has no way of knowing unless s/he is aware of that material from another source. It's the same thing with 'Interception of Communications' surveillance - unless one finds out, after the fact and from another source, there is no way to know that it is happening. And therefore there are no grounds to complain and to invoke the law. What we need is the virtual equivalent of the click created when a third party picks up a telephone receiver to eavesdrop on a conversation. Then we can complain and the law is helpful. The citizen needs to be empowered with knowledge of what is going on. The danger to freedoms comes when this knowledge is withheld or concealed. Deirdre On 27 January 2012 05:11, Roland Perry wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 22:51:50 on > Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Paul Lehto writes > > This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would oppose a >> right to ACCESS the "Internet" >> > > Isn't there a danger of confusing access to the Internet with access to > particular content sites on the Internet? > > > -- most people naturally think of the internet as international and >> various parties, including but not limited to Google and Twitter, and >> putting more and more structural barriers in place to accessing the free >> international internet >> > > To use their own example, they'd respect the law in Germany, regarding > pro-Nazi content, by withholding it from Germany rather than removing it > from the whole world. > > That retains the individual's right of freedom on *speech*, but restricts > the right to *listen* in some places (but only because of the law in that > place). > > eBay has being doing this kind of thing for years - selectively > restricting prohibited products depending on the country it's offered for > sale. And all countries (even the USA) have things they wouldn't want you > to tweet about. > -- > 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 aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 09:23:27 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:23:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Ginger and Ricardo, for making my point both "disagree" - and that's it. At best followed by an assertion What has occurred, in my view is reflexive - rather than a reflective. and I'll add an emoticon for good measure[?][?][?][?][?][?] Gladwell (Outlayers) makes the point that it takes 10'000 hours of work to become good at it. It applies to Mozart as well as me. He did not say one couls shorcut by sending 10'000 twitter messages.[?][?][?][?] Aldo On 27 January 2012 15:13, ricardo ruiz < doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com> wrote: > i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it should > be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on > the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, i.e. > > Sorry for the poor english and best from northestearn Brazil, > > Ruiz > > 2012/1/27, Ginger Paque : > > Hi there, > > > > Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern > > communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at > > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He > > argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among > > others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective > (and > > congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. > Personally, > > I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', > we > > have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are > > preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into > > consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the > IGC: > > it allows for full multi-party discussion. > > > > Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to > improve > > our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved > > e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the > > potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and > the > > recent online blackout activities: > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload > > > > Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened > ACTA. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > Diplo Foundation > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: > www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > > > > > -- > ----------- > :(){ :|:& };: > Unix Shell Forkbomb (2002) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: 332.png Type: image/png Size: 619 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 331.png Type: image/png Size: 736 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 328.png Type: image/png Size: 569 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 32B.png Type: image/png Size: 626 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 333.png Type: image/png Size: 646 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 Jan 27 10:38:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:38:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: In message , at 10:18:33 on Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Deirdre Williams writes > If content is blocked, to my understanding the user has no way of >knowing unless s/he is aware of that material from another source. It's >the same thing with 'Interception of Communications' surveillance - >unless one finds out, after the fact and from another source, there is >no way to know that it is happening. And therefore there are no grounds >to complain and to invoke the law. What we need is the virtual >equivalent of the click created when a third party picks up a telephone >receiver to eavesdrop on a conversation. Then we can complain and the >law is helpful. This is a cause of much debate in the UK, regarding what's known as a "splash page" to display instead of the actual content, to inform the viewer that it's been blocked (access denied). The alternative is to 'pretend' the page doesn't exist at all, and display a generic "Not found" message. I'm not going to comment on the merits (or demerits) of that approach. However, if you've been told about content by being given a link (either explicitly from another website or correspondent, or impliedly via a search engine) and that link returns "Not Found", one conclusion it's possible to draw is that the content has been blocked, and enquiries can be made from the source of the link. -- 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Jan 27 11:50:35 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:50:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Twitter to add to Balkanization of the Web In-Reply-To: References: <4F21CB33.1080309@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Hi, It happens that content is blocked by one's own filters due to a load of obnoxious ads tacked on URLs by Google. - - - On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 16:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 10:18:33 on > Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Deirdre Williams writes > > If content is blocked, to my understanding the user has no way of knowing >> unless s/he is aware of that material from another source. It's the same >> thing with 'Interception of Communications' surveillance - unless one finds >> out, after the fact and from another source, there is no way to know that >> it is happening. And therefore there are no grounds to complain and to >> invoke the law. What we need is the virtual equivalent of the click created >> when a third party picks up a telephone receiver to eavesdrop on a >> conversation. Then we can complain and the law is helpful. >> > > This is a cause of much debate in the UK, regarding what's known as a > "splash page" to display instead of the actual content, to inform the > viewer that it's been blocked (access denied). The alternative is to > 'pretend' the page doesn't exist at all, and display a generic "Not found" > message. > > I'm not going to comment on the merits (or demerits) of that approach. > > However, if you've been told about content by being given a link (either > explicitly from another website or correspondent, or impliedly via a search > engine) and that link returns "Not Found", one conclusion it's possible to > draw is that the content has been blocked, and enquiries can be made from > the source of the link. > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 12:48:50 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:48:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC: European Parliament rapporteur quits in Acta protest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F22E382.9000805@gmail.com> [1 person, just one person... !] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142 European Parliament rapporteur quits in Acta protest Comments (90) By Dave Lee Technology Reporter Mr Arif's resignation follows protests in several locations across Poland Negotiations over a controversial anti-piracy agreement have been described as a "masquerade" by a key Euro MP. Kader Arif, the European Parliament's rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta), resigned over the issue on Friday. He said he had witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres" by officials preparing the treaty. On Thursday, 22 EU member states including the UK signed the agreement. The treaty still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament before it can be enacted. A debate is scheduled to take place in June. Mr Arif criticised the efforts to push forward with the measures ahead of those discussions taking place. "I condemn the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any explanation given, reject of Parliament's recommendations as given in several resolutions of our assembly." Mr Arif's decision to stand down follows protests by campaigners in Poland. Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets after the agreement was signed. Crowds of mostly young people held banners with slogans such as "no to censorship" and "a free internet". Earlier in the week, hackers attacked several Polish government websites, including that of Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The country's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski defended the plans, telling local television: "We believe that theft on a massive scale of intellectual property is not a good thing." 'Legitimate demands' Campaigners' concerns have been buoyed by Mr Arif's strongly-worded statement released on Friday. "This agreement can have major consequences on citizens' lives," he wrote. "However, everything is made to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." The treaty has caused controversy since an early discussion paper was published by Wikileaks in 2008 - two years after negotiations first began. The details were subsequently confirmed in 2010. People took to the streets across Poland to protest against Acta If ratified, it proposes to improve "the enforcement of intellectual property rights" in participating countries. It suggests setting international standards over how copyright infringements are dealt with, with preventative measures including possible imprisonment and fines. The UK's Intellectual Property Office has backed the measures, describing piracy as a "major global issue". "Yesterday's signing of Acta is important for the UK as it will set an international standard for tackling large-scale infringements of IPR, through the creation of common enforcement standards and more effective international cooperation. Importantly, it aims to improve the enforcement of existing IPR laws, not create new ones," it said. 'Dangerous' Darrell Issa, a US senator and vocal critic of the stalled Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), voiced his concerns about Acta at the World Economics Forum in Davos. "As a member of Congress, it's more dangerous than Sopa," he said. "It's not coming to me for a vote. It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it." In addition to internet-based measures, the agreement also seeks to curb trade of counterfeited physical goods. Past drafts of the treaty suggested that internet service providers would have to give up data about users accused of copyright infringement and might have to cut them off - although this segment of the agreement has since been removed. Outside of the EU, the treaty has also been signed by the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. In response to Mr Arif's resignation, a spokesman for the European Commission told the BBC: "Mr Arif and other members of the European Parliament's [Committee on International Trade] have had access to successive versions of the Acta text. The full text has been fully public since April 2010. It was made available in the first place because the European Commission convinced the other countries to publish this text. "There have been four stakeholder conferences since 2008, and at least three speeches in the European Parliament on Acta. And now there will be a full debate. This is exactly what the normal process is. "But most importantly Acta does not change any EU laws, it simply levels the playing field so that other countries match our standards. There is no threat to internet freedom or privacy. Everything you can do legally today in the EU, you would be legally able to do if Acta is ratified." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 13:07:28 2012 From: doutorsocratesoreidofutebol at gmail.com (ricardo ruiz) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:07:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] BBC: European Parliament rapporteur quits in Acta protest In-Reply-To: <4F22E382.9000805@gmail.com> References: <4F22E382.9000805@gmail.com> Message-ID: sad. Very short-minded people gorvernments from EU and US. Attached to the past, with no solutions for a already existing new world. "money, money, money, people, is the root of all the evil" Deus salve Macunaíma no fim dos tempos - Best and good luck for us, poor citizens, R 2012/1/27, Riaz K Tayob : > [1 person, just one person... !] > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142 European Parliament > rapporteur quits in Acta protest Comments (90) By Dave Lee Technology > Reporter Mr Arif's resignation follows protests in several locations > across Poland Negotiations over a controversial anti-piracy agreement > have been described as a "masquerade" by a key Euro MP. Kader Arif, the > European Parliament's rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade > Agreement (Acta), resigned over the issue on Friday. He said he had > witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres" by officials preparing the > treaty. On Thursday, 22 EU member states including the UK signed the > agreement. The treaty still needs to be ratified by the European > Parliament before it can be enacted. A debate is scheduled to take place > in June. Mr Arif criticised the efforts to push forward with the > measures ahead of those discussions taking place. "I condemn the whole > process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of > the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of > negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any > explanation given, reject of Parliament's recommendations as given in > several resolutions of our assembly." Mr Arif's decision to stand down > follows protests by campaigners in Poland. Thousands of demonstrators > took to the streets after the agreement was signed. Crowds of mostly > young people held banners with slogans such as "no to censorship" and "a > free internet". Earlier in the week, hackers attacked several Polish > government websites, including that of Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The > country's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski defended the plans, telling > local television: "We believe that theft on a massive scale of > intellectual property is not a good thing." 'Legitimate demands' > Campaigners' concerns have been buoyed by Mr Arif's strongly-worded > statement released on Friday. "This agreement can have major > consequences on citizens' lives," he wrote. "However, everything is made > to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. I > want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this > unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." The > treaty has caused controversy since an early discussion paper was > published by Wikileaks in 2008 - two years after negotiations first > began. The details were subsequently confirmed in 2010. People took to > the streets across Poland to protest against Acta If ratified, it > proposes to improve "the enforcement of intellectual property rights" in > participating countries. It suggests setting international standards > over how copyright infringements are dealt with, with preventative > measures including possible imprisonment and fines. The UK's > Intellectual Property Office has backed the measures, describing piracy > as a "major global issue". "Yesterday's signing of Acta is important for > the UK as it will set an international standard for tackling large-scale > infringements of IPR, through the creation of common enforcement > standards and more effective international cooperation. Importantly, it > aims to improve the enforcement of existing IPR laws, not create new > ones," it said. 'Dangerous' Darrell Issa, a US senator and vocal critic > of the stalled Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), voiced his concerns about > Acta at the World Economics Forum in Davos. "As a member of Congress, > it's more dangerous than Sopa," he said. "It's not coming to me for a > vote. It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once > implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will > virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it." In addition to > internet-based measures, the agreement also seeks to curb trade of > counterfeited physical goods. Past drafts of the treaty suggested that > internet service providers would have to give up data about users > accused of copyright infringement and might have to cut them off - > although this segment of the agreement has since been removed. Outside > of the EU, the treaty has also been signed by the US, Australia, Canada, > Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. In response to > Mr Arif's resignation, a spokesman for the European Commission told the > BBC: "Mr Arif and other members of the European Parliament's [Committee > on International Trade] have had access to successive versions of the > Acta text. The full text has been fully public since April 2010. It was > made available in the first place because the European Commission > convinced the other countries to publish this text. "There have been > four stakeholder conferences since 2008, and at least three speeches in > the European Parliament on Acta. And now there will be a full debate. > This is exactly what the normal process is. "But most importantly Acta > does not change any EU laws, it simply levels the playing field so that > other countries match our standards. There is no threat to internet > freedom or privacy. Everything you can do legally today in the EU, you > would be legally able to do if Acta is ratified." > > -- ----------- :(){ :|:& };: Unix Shell Forkbomb (2002) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 16:58:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:58:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Davos calls for clear laws against cybercrime Message-ID: <4F231DEE.90606@gmail.com> Davos calls for clear laws against cybercrime HUI MIN NEO DAVOS, SWITZERLAND - Jan 26 2012 11:34 http://mg.co.za/article/2012-01-26-davos-calls-for-clear-laws-against-cybercrime/ International action to snuff out cybercrime is desperately needed, officials and business leaders said, warning that criminals move at internet speed while countries drag their feet. Many hackers are no longer just mischievous individuals. Instead well-funded organisations do it for profit, along with spies and terrorists, but many governments are struggling to fight it. "Many countries don't have laws to criminalise cybercrime, they don't have means and tools to investigate, to share information," said Yury Fedotov, who heads the United Nations office on drugs and crime. Cybercrime is "interconnected in terms of crime, but not interconnected in collaboration" against it, he added, noting that there is not even an agreement on what constitutes cybercrime. Fedotov said his greatest wish would be "to get a clear definition of cybercrime -- to be clear about what should be rejected by member states and what should be allowed." "Criminals move at the speed of internet and countries move at speed of democracy -- that's the discrepancy," warned Moises Naim, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In one of the major recent attacks in January, a hacker brought down the websites of Israel's national carrier El Al and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. It marked the latest incident in a series of attacks only days into 2012, which saw details of tens of thousands of Israeli credit cards posted online and websites defaced by hackers claiming to be from Saudi Arabia or Gaza. CONTINUES BELOW Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesperson for Gaza's Hamas rulers, has hailed the action, describing it as "a sign of the Arab youth's creativity in inventing new forms of Arab and Islamic resistance against the Israeli occupation". The Israeli market was not the only one subject to such attacks. US exchange Nasdaq's general counsellor Edward Knight told delegates in Davos that the world's largest exchange company is also "subject to constant attacks, a million or more ... intrusions into our systems". He complained that there is no clarity on "where is public responsibility and where is private responsibility" on clamping down on such crime. Unlike real world attacks, the private sector is required to provide its own defence system, even if virtual attacks are coming from foreign governments. Kevin Johnson, chief executive officer at the US-based internet infrastructure provider Juniper Networks, urged state authorities to work with private organisations to clamp down on such crime. "The challenge is that the internet is a global resource but there are no geographic boundaries on the Internet, yet laws are established by nation states, they are establised by geography," he said. "One recommendation is any solution ... is going to require a much higher degree of public, private partnership," Johnson stressed. -- AFP -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 21:47:16 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:47:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service Message-ID: Google threw in the following message earlier this morning. It seems like they're trying to tread towards more understandable privacy policies. I wonder how this goes for them: http://www.google.com/policies/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Google Date: Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:37 AM Subject: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service To: fouadbajwa ** Is this email not displaying properly? View it in your browser. Dear Google user, We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google. We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012. One policy, one Google experience ------------------------------ [image: Easy to work across Google] [image: Tailored for you] [image: Easy to share and collaborate] Easy to work across Google Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether you're reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease. Tailored for you If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster. Easy to share and collaborate When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors. ------------------------------ Protecting your privacy hasn't changed Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests). Got questions? We've got answers. Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.) ------------------------------ Notice of Change March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hempalshrestha at gmail.com Fri Jan 27 21:59:33 2012 From: hempalshrestha at gmail.com (Hempal Shrestha) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:44:33 +0545 Subject: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And there is "No, Thanks" option to choose from. Rather it make it bit difficult with last paragraph: "*March 1, 2012* is when the new Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service." I wonder, why no freedom this time With regards, Hempal Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal PS: :( On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Google threw in the following message earlier this morning. It seems like > they're trying to tread towards more understandable privacy policies. I > wonder how this goes for them: http://www.google.com/policies/ > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Google > Date: Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:37 AM > Subject: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service > To: fouadbajwa > > > ** > > Is this email not displaying properly? > View it in your browser. > > Dear Google user, > > We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and > replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new > policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to > create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google. > > We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our > updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at > http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March > 1, 2012. > > One policy, one Google experience > ------------------------------ > [image: Easy to work across Google] [image: Tailored for you] [image: > Easy to share and collaborate] Easy to work across Google > > Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you > need, when you want it to. Whether you're reading an email that reminds you > to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want > to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, > YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease. > Tailored for you > > If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries > – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed > in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of > Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster. > Easy to share and collaborate > > When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see > and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you > want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product > or service with minimal clicks and errors. > ------------------------------ > Protecting your privacy hasn't changed > > Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as > possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences > Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. > And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your > permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests). > Got questions? > We've got answers. > > Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about > the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.) > > ------------------------------ > Notice of Change > > March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into > effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will > be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. > > Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be > answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a > link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the > site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will > never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information. > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 28 04:43:33 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:43:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC: European Parliament rapporteur quits in Acta protest In-Reply-To: References: <4F22E382.9000805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F23C345.6070201@gmail.com> I would not go that far, but it does seem like it flows to those with crazy values...! It is a values crisis (left and right in Europe mostly share the same predilections, but the European left parties have been equally good at delivering neoliberal values). Self interest can lead to the common good, it just depends. But is it not surprising that during a right-wing turn in Europe and concerns about foreigners taking locals's jobs that ACTA would be passed, and it will actually make it easier for outsourcing of production to other countries? Or that low intensity democracy is used as a shield for instituting new forms of oppression? And perhaps it is just me, but does the American system seems to have a better quality bun fight over issues like this than Europe? On 2012/01/27 08:07 PM, ricardo ruiz wrote: > sad. Very short-minded people gorvernments from EU and US. Attached to > the past, with no solutions for a already existing new world. "money, > money, money, people, is the root of all the evil" > > Deus salve Macunaíma no fim dos tempos - > > Best and good luck for us, poor citizens, > > R > > 2012/1/27, Riaz K Tayob: >> [1 person, just one person... !] >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142 European Parliament >> rapporteur quits in Acta protest Comments (90) By Dave Lee Technology >> Reporter Mr Arif's resignation follows protests in several locations >> across Poland Negotiations over a controversial anti-piracy agreement >> have been described as a "masquerade" by a key Euro MP. Kader Arif, the >> European Parliament's rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade >> Agreement (Acta), resigned over the issue on Friday. He said he had >> witnessed "never-before-seen manoeuvres" by officials preparing the >> treaty. On Thursday, 22 EU member states including the UK signed the >> agreement. The treaty still needs to be ratified by the European >> Parliament before it can be enacted. A debate is scheduled to take place >> in June. Mr Arif criticised the efforts to push forward with the >> measures ahead of those discussions taking place. "I condemn the whole >> process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of >> the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of >> negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any >> explanation given, reject of Parliament's recommendations as given in >> several resolutions of our assembly." Mr Arif's decision to stand down >> follows protests by campaigners in Poland. Thousands of demonstrators >> took to the streets after the agreement was signed. Crowds of mostly >> young people held banners with slogans such as "no to censorship" and "a >> free internet". Earlier in the week, hackers attacked several Polish >> government websites, including that of Prime Minister Donald Tusk. The >> country's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski defended the plans, telling >> local television: "We believe that theft on a massive scale of >> intellectual property is not a good thing." 'Legitimate demands' >> Campaigners' concerns have been buoyed by Mr Arif's strongly-worded >> statement released on Friday. "This agreement can have major >> consequences on citizens' lives," he wrote. "However, everything is made >> to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. I >> want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this >> unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." The >> treaty has caused controversy since an early discussion paper was >> published by Wikileaks in 2008 - two years after negotiations first >> began. The details were subsequently confirmed in 2010. People took to >> the streets across Poland to protest against Acta If ratified, it >> proposes to improve "the enforcement of intellectual property rights" in >> participating countries. It suggests setting international standards >> over how copyright infringements are dealt with, with preventative >> measures including possible imprisonment and fines. The UK's >> Intellectual Property Office has backed the measures, describing piracy >> as a "major global issue". "Yesterday's signing of Acta is important for >> the UK as it will set an international standard for tackling large-scale >> infringements of IPR, through the creation of common enforcement >> standards and more effective international cooperation. Importantly, it >> aims to improve the enforcement of existing IPR laws, not create new >> ones," it said. 'Dangerous' Darrell Issa, a US senator and vocal critic >> of the stalled Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), voiced his concerns about >> Acta at the World Economics Forum in Davos. "As a member of Congress, >> it's more dangerous than Sopa," he said. "It's not coming to me for a >> vote. It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once >> implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will >> virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it." In addition to >> internet-based measures, the agreement also seeks to curb trade of >> counterfeited physical goods. Past drafts of the treaty suggested that >> internet service providers would have to give up data about users >> accused of copyright infringement and might have to cut them off - >> although this segment of the agreement has since been removed. Outside >> of the EU, the treaty has also been signed by the US, Australia, Canada, >> Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. In response to >> Mr Arif's resignation, a spokesman for the European Commission told the >> BBC: "Mr Arif and other members of the European Parliament's [Committee >> on International Trade] have had access to successive versions of the >> Acta text. The full text has been fully public since April 2010. It was >> made available in the first place because the European Commission >> convinced the other countries to publish this text. "There have been >> four stakeholder conferences since 2008, and at least three speeches in >> the European Parliament on Acta. And now there will be a full debate. >> This is exactly what the normal process is. "But most importantly Acta >> does not change any EU laws, it simply levels the playing field so that >> other countries match our standards. There is no threat to internet >> freedom or privacy. Everything you can do legally today in the EU, you >> would be legally able to do if Acta is ratified." >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Sat Jan 28 14:03:54 2012 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:03:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think for smart phone users, logged in all the time, this policy will synch all Google use. For me, a desktop user, I now understand a trend I've been aware of. A while back Google provided a 'multiple sign-in' option, thus linking accounts. And offered to prioritize mail with 'most important' flags. Then Google has been 'improving' it's email interface and now is insisting the new choice be adopted. The sign-out is now in a drop-down, an extra click to log out. And an extra click to log in. This provides a 'home page' with a large spot for advertising, and keeps the non-vigilant user logged in. So I see all this culminating in the new no-privacy policy, log in and get shared, log in and get helped, directed by Nanny Google. On the other hand, GMail has a spam filter superior to my ISP. I'm debating whether to stick with GMail (I do like reading and archiving in the cloud), and have lately been using Firefox instead of Chrome. I am disenchanted with the changes, associate them with the new management, ... What has been happening has seemed to me like a company high on speed, changing, changing, competing, acting, ... without considering all the consequences. Maybe this is towards profit. Or position. Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 00:29:33 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:29:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion.* *Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, * * * Dear Ginger and Ricardo: I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which I invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above): yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion. Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a dialogue – which is to deliberate. Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a revolution? Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree) even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite. Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message. Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text. My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual) hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we ascribe the outcome to a superior person. Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote – democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a deliberation: the common reflection and input from various points of view. The intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive. James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter than the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e. reflect for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better than that of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather than reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias. In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities. Aldo On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi there, > > Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern > communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He > argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among > others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and > congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, > I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we > have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are > preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into > consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: > it allows for full multi-party discussion. > > Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to > improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved > e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the > potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the > recent online blackout activities: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload > > Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA. > > Best, Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > Diplo Foundation > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* > > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Jan 30 04:44:18 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:44:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service In-Reply-To: (message from Sylvia Caras on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:03:54 -0800) References: Message-ID: <20120130094418.2616F15C41A@quill.bollow.ch> Sylvia Caras wrote: > directed by Nanny Google. I very much agree with the reservations expressed by Sylvia, and think that we definitely should insist on the freedom to be treated as adults. 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Jan 30 05:54:32 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:54:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG and CSTD WG meetings Message-ID: <4F2676E8.40704@apc.org> Dear Izumi APC will be at the IGF meeting, and I will try my best to be at the CSTD WG meeting. Valeria will unfortunately not be able to be at the MAG meeting, but if I am there for the open consultation I will stay to observe the MAG meeting. I just wish the CSTD meeting could have been closes to the IGF meeting... Anriette On 26/01/12 15:07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 08:46:43 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:46:43 +0500 Subject: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601ccdf55$9c9e8370$d5db8a50$@yahoo.com> Dear All, With reference to new changes in Google Privacy Policy about "the Sharing" of user's personal data among all of G/oogle network Applications, it is so simple to obtain the acceptability of normal users because it provides integration among all applications and excellent feature of "single-sign-on" which has been a prominent feature of many software leading companies. Risk factor about the information security is this that if any of its application compromises, the hackers or intruders will have access to all of users' data/information and the issues of theft of identity may arises. Most vulnerable if the handheld device is Android where many Goggle Apps will have single and always sign-in situation. However, the sensitive users have to care about their personal information & activities as well as business information and activities. When Google accept the tracking your move, your choices, your searches, your analysis, record of your downloads and images, your friends, your flavor of liking and disliking, he is also obtaining the business competitive analysis raw data and can easily construct leading survey results better than the Gartner. For example the manufacturer of type A products have correspondence and appointments with the region/location AA. The consumers of product B imports their products from Company BB. Another important question is about the information which is being accessed by Google through its Applications: Just for instance, if you inspect Google Maps Application Security Information / Permission on a handheld device like BlackBerry it has access on Connections like USB, Bluetooth, Phone, Location Data, Wi-Fi and Internet, Interaction between Cross Applications, Communication, Device Settings, Media and User Data like PIM, Email, Organizer Data, Files etc. I have tried to Deny the permission for some of them and as a result of it, the application stopped working. How many consumers knows that Google Apps and/or other Applications have access to your personal data which was not relevant to these applications normally. Why he needs access to my organizational email which is not a Gmail? I this Consumer Rights infringements / violations should be studied by the Consumer Rights supporting organization and the awareness of this breach should be communicated to public/consumers. I think its Jeremy field to study the impact of the "violation of Consumer Rights" in this point of view. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmad Shah [IGFPAK.org] From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia Caras Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 12:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] sharing: Changes to Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service I think for smart phone users, logged in all the time, this policy will synch all Google use. For me, a desktop user, I now understand a trend I've been aware of. A while back Google provided a 'multiple sign-in' option, thus linking accounts. And offered to prioritize mail with 'most important' flags. Then Google has been 'improving' it's email interface and now is insisting the new choice be adopted. The sign-out is now in a drop-down, an extra click to log out. And an extra click to log in. This provides a 'home page' with a large spot for advertising, and keeps the non-vigilant user logged in. So I see all this culminating in the new no-privacy policy, log in and get shared, log in and get helped, directed by Nanny Google. On the other hand, GMail has a spam filter superior to my ISP. I'm debating whether to stick with GMail (I do like reading and archiving in the cloud), and have lately been using Firefox instead of Chrome. I am disenchanted with the changes, associate them with the new management, ... What has been happening has seemed to me like a company high on speed, changing, changing, competing, acting, ... without considering all the consequences. Maybe this is towards profit. Or position. Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 05:38:55 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:38:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aldo, This is an interesting debate. I was trying to compose a response in blog-post form - but will instead opt for the moment for some responses in-line below. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > *Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online > communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that > short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth > limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage > to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion.* > > *Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, it > should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone on > the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, * > > ** > Ginger and Ricardo point to one of the properties of short communication that can be very valuable in online dialogues - it can scale to involve a larger number of participants who each get to offer some input. It's hard to hold a deep dialogue with a lot of people (note Plato's dialogues rarely have a large crowd of characters), whereas the shorter form communication enabled by small comment boxes can support more people to be part of a conversation in a short time. As Ginger and Ricardo alude to - this can lead to a chaotic conversations, or a cacophony of voices - or to some voices still dominating the discussion. There are two complementary responses I think to this: one is active (open) facilitation of a dialogue when there are a large number of people taking part; the second is in having good platforms that help everyone make short comments in semi-structured ways, weaving twitter-length contributions collaboratively into a larger whole. > I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which I > invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above): > yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion. > > Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter > format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a > dialogue – which is to deliberate. > It can be useful to distinguish between the twitter format with a time-limit, twitter-length communication over time, and communication on twitter. Putting an arbitrary limit of 140 characters on input into a short synchronous online dialogue does seem likely to shape the discussion towards short assertions, rather than expression of more deliberative and complex ideas - certainly unless the community develop shorthands to fit their communication within the limit. However, when communication is extended over time, as it is in many twitter conversations, which are asychronous, then a lot of deliberation and nuance can start to be incorporated. Scholars of Computer Mediated Communication have looked at how, with reduced cues from non-verbal interactions people over time compensate and find ways to pick up meaning not only from the content of a message, but also the timing, sequencing and other signals. Twitter itself creates some very nuanced social conventions, of reference to issues with hash-tags, people with @'s and so-on. Conversations can take place on a slow-burn over weeks and months on Twitter itself, enabling interesting forms of deliberation. > Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very > noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is > irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the > future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them > ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a > revolution? > > Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree) > even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the > discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they > agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite. > Not necessarily. We may have been aware that a detailed reply takes time. Quick vote-style replies can move a dialogue on, and then the reply to those can draw other people in... > Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and > replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message. > Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text. > Not if you leave it in Tweet-form in the book. Take Plato's dialogues and tweet them over time, interacting with those who reply, and building a dialogue through interaction - now you have changed, and for some of the audience, improved the text. There will be those who get to engage with the ideas for the first time seeing them in short form. For some the short-form will crystalise things they had already read, for others, it will act as a teaser - encouraging them to look at the longer and more in-depth form. Twitter-like communication is one layer of dialogue. Different layers engage different people at different times - our challenge in facilitating dialogue is to link these layers if we can. > My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know > that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and > to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual) > hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically > inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we > ascribe the outcome to a superior person. > This is a really interesting observation - and I think somewhere where we have to keep a watchful eye on how Twitter-like communications impact people. Any digital conversation can now make a choice over whether or not a permanent record of the dialogue will be held - or whether only the outcome will be recorded and enter into the public sphere. Negotiating whether or not the dialogue should be on or off-record again is a facilitation and community choice that should be consciously made. Some people value the ability to look back on the record to see how their views have changed (e.g. in working with young people, the ability to look back over their online traces and see how they have developed as an individual can be very valuable); for others, the record might create the risk of attributing the outcomes to an individual rather than the collective, or might limit the positions someone can take in the future because of their past expressions. > Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote – > democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It > comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a deliberation: > the common reflection and input from various points of view. The > intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive. > I'm not sure this is true. Each of the above 'vote' like statements also offered some reasons. In the 'limited bandwidth' of a short message, individuals do need to make explicit what might otherwise be left as implicit views (opinion on the debate are often encoded rather than stated in longer messages, but are no less present) Facilitation and the set-up of any discussion can reduce it to a vote or not - but unless the medium is a voting button (and even then...) it's usually flesible... James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter than > the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e. reflect > for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better than that > of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather than > reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias. > In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was > secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity > of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to > plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities. > I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself does? Or something else? > Aldo > All the best Tim > > On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and modern >> communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at >> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He >> argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among >> others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and >> congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, >> I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we >> have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are >> preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into >> consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: >> it allows for full multi-party discussion. >> >> Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to >> improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved >> e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the >> potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the >> recent online blackout activities: >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload >> >> Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened ACTA. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> Diplo Foundation >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> >> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> * >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 sangeeta at twnetwork.org Tue Jan 31 10:22:35 2012 From: sangeeta at twnetwork.org (Sangeeta Shashikant) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:22:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Africa IP Summit: Sign On letter to WIPO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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.This Summit aims to have at least 600 participants from the government, private sector, creative industry etc.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. If you are interested in more details see the US government site www.cldp.doc.gov/category/countries-and.../sub-saharan-africa. 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 a letter to WIPO. See below. If you are interested to sign on to the letter, pls send me the name of your organisation and contact details to sangeeta at twnetwork.org or ssangeeta at myjaring.net by Thursday, 2nd February. Regards Sangeeta Shashikant Third World Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] <#_ftn1> 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 Consumer Association of Penang Health Gap, USA Third World Network [1] <#_ftnref1> http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 10:23:44 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:23:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 10:40:30 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:40:30 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.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 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. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 11:07:57 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:07:57 +0100 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: Good point, Wolfgang, probably it is disambiguated, i.e. announced as such e.g. by inverted commas, or cue cards with "Laugh" on it. Aldo 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 > > -- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 11:11:39 2012 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:11:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Africa IP Summit: Sign On letter to WIPO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sangeeta I will like to sign the letter Aaron On 1/31/12, Sangeeta Shashikant wrote: > 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.This Summit aims to have at least 600 participants > from the government, private sector, creative industry etc.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. If you > are interested in more details see the US government site > www.cldp.doc.gov/category/countries-and.../sub-saharan-africa. > > 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 a letter to WIPO. See below. > > If you are interested to sign on to the letter, pls send me the name of your > organisation and contact details to sangeeta at twnetwork.org or > ssangeeta at myjaring.net > by Thursday, 2nd February. > > Regards > Sangeeta Shashikant > Third World Network > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] <#_ftn1> 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 > Consumer Association of Penang > Health Gap, USA > Third World Network > > > > [1] <#_ftnref1> > http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-forum > > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Cellphone: +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Tue Jan 31 11:21:46 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:21:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CEAE4B8F9EBAA4-1BF8-223D0@angweb-usd022.sysops.aol.com> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 11:31:38 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:31:38 -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: <4F28176A.9060401@cafonso.ca> ... or with shovels (which incidentally of course weren't there)?? The limits of idiocy... are there any limits? --c.a. On 01/31/2012 02:21 PM, 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 > 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 J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk Tue Jan 31 11:36:04 2012 From: J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk (Cave, Jonathan) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:36:04 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Message-ID: <2sfj0xr35igvwy0bcike2gni.1328027764022@email.android.com> Probably I will regret replying, but "fire in a crowded theatre" is directly harmful to others, as is hate speech urging violence, etc. The proscribed tweets pose no such threat. Announcing an intention to destroy America seems to me like a hungry Brit late on a Saturday night saying "I could murder an Indian" (meaning "I would rally like to eat a curry"), which is clearly understood by all to whom it was addressed. Moreover, there is no conceiveable terrorist agenda that could be advanced by the tweet eithout the homeland security overreaction. Agent provocateur?  Otherwise, almost any utterance could be legitimately construed as a coded reference to terrotism, or a cue for coordinating a plot. Wouldn't it be odd if the intepretation of a tweet were somehow linked to the nationality, ethnicity, religion, wealth, etc. of the tweeter? Or if the tweets of Americans were screened for threats of economic attack on Europe? Nahh... Couldn't happen. Sent from Samsung tablet "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Jan 31 11:42:52 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:42:52 +0100 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: <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Generally, yes, but one man's joke is another man's threat. In the 'Twitter joke trial' in the UK a man was fined for tweeting - as a joke, he argued - that he would blow an airport 'sky high' if it didn't open in time. The appeals court judge in his case (dismissing his appeal) wrote (as summarized by UK HR Blog) that as an "educated man in his mid-20s, [he] must at least have been aware that in the current climate of concern about terrorist threats, his message might be taken as menacing – the mental element of the offence (that is, what he was thinking at the time) was therefore also made out." See: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/12/02/do-offensive-tweeters-have-freedom-of-expression-rights/ 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. Seriously Matthias Am 31.01.2012 16:40, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > 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. > > -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) F | +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com -- Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Teaching and Research Fellow Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sangeeta at twnetwork.org Tue Jan 31 11:51:56 2012 From: sangeeta at twnetwork.org (Sangeeta Shashikant) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:51:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Africa IP Summit: Sign On letter to WIPO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry reposting this message with the correct link. 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.This Summit aims to have at least 600 participants from the government, private sector, creative industry etc.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. 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 a letter to WIPO. See below. If you are interested to sign on to the letter, pls send me the name of your organisation and contact details to sangeeta at twnetwork.org or ssangeeta at myjaring.net by Thursday, 2nd February. Regards Sangeeta Shashikant Third World Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] <#_ftn1> 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 Consumer Association of Penang Health Gap, USA Third World Network [1] <#_ftnref1> http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jan 31 11:53:49 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:53:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 12:17:10 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:17:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: Matthias, thank you for the clarifying reply, but I'd tend to raise questions anyway: while tweeting may be overheard by the power that be, *tweeting is used and intended by both sides of the echange as PRIVATE communications* they spoke in their "private mode" subject to all the personal rules of such an exchange. They would not have spoken so in public, had they been in public, out of the concerns the judge mentioned. But no public was present. All of us have "special words" and "hidden messages" wee share - it is part of the "in group" feel. A good example is the use of the "f-word" which, in private conversation simply emphasizes, but has not literal meaning. Now when these words are overheard, and brutally taken out of the private realm and into the public space, they must offend. But the error is with the authorities, not with those who spoke privately, and intended to do so. I'm concerned not only that private conversations are overheard, but the very use of private language be banned or subject to PC rules. In NZ a "anti-smacking" law was introduced wich, in my view, risks having a "morality policemen" inside every home. I'm not speaking of violence against children - that's covered, and no need for further law. But to go as far as spanking... it's frightening. Life is an ongoing process the law is a final stop Aldo On 31 January 2012 17:42, Matthias C. Kettemann < matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote: > Generally, yes, but one man's joke is another man's threat. In the > 'Twitter joke trial' in the UK a man was fined for tweeting - as a joke, he > argued - that he would blow an airport 'sky high' if it didn't open in > time. The appeals court judge in his case (dismissing his appeal) wrote (as > summarized by UK HR Blog) that as an "educated man in his mid-20s, [he] > must at least have been aware that in the current climate of concern about > terrorist threats, his message might be taken as menacing – the mental > element of the offence (that is, what he was thinking at the time) was > therefore also made out." See: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/** > 2010/12/02/do-offensive-**tweeters-have-freedom-of-**expression-rights/ > > 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. > > Seriously > Matthias > > > > Am 31.01.2012 16:40, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > > 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> 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> 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. >> >> >> > -- > > Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet**.blogspot.com > > > -- > > Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > Teaching and Research Fellow > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet**.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 13:11:28 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:28 -0500 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> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland > Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. > The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why > are the monitoring tweets in the first place? > Good point. Average people, at least in the USA, are sufficiently paranoid that there is a reasonably high chance they will report something perceived by them to be a real threat, as opposed to a joke. But that is not the only way the system is working nowadays. The direct answer to the original question regarding the protection of humor is that humor, while protected, would be a First Amendment-based *affirmative defense*. As such, it will not stop an arrest or detention, but *it might work at trial with a jury*,if you can get one and are not instead detained indefinitely based on the invocation of national security concerns... Of course, if one has to go to trial on a humor defense, it's not funny at all and one has already lost. Also, in the context of a nationa security-related trial, I can pretty much guarantee that people will be in a frame of mind the courtroom not to experience anything as humorous, because the prosecutor will be portraying it as sinister or violent, and one (as a juror) is not supposed to make up one's mind and thereby appreciate the true humor of it until the trial is over. Bottom line: Humor just ain't funny (in this context). The "better safe than sorry" attitude expressed even here on this list operates to create some pretty grim results from time to time. National security agents are now supposed to "connect the dots" at all costs (to prevent more 9/11's) and sometimes they will "connect dots" that don't exist, and see patterns that are not really there... Benjamin Franklin and others have tried to popularize the idea that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Many forms of this quote are attributed to Franklin but the gist is: "*Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." *I.e. we've got to tolerate significant insecurity in order to preserve liberty. In that spirit, I'd rather trade in the regular hassle and invasion of privacy of body searches on every plane for the glorious chance to rush a terrorist and either succeed, or go down in a blaze of glory. Something like that, within reason, is the proper attitude of a freedom loving person. (They can still scan luggage, etc, for bombs) Paul Lehto, J.D. > Kerry Brown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 13:15:46 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:15:46 -0400 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> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: I was horrified when I read the first in this string of messages a couple of hours ago. For one thing the word 'destroy' has been used with this sense in the English language vernacular of Ireland for at least the last 50 years (it predates the slang use of 'bad' as 'excellent'). For another thing, like Kerry, I am terrified by the idea that the concept of 'private' conversation is eroding to the point of non-existence. And also - surely a basic premise of law is that legislation should be balanced by the right of appeal? And then again there's basic common sense - but that seems to have become subject to regulation. Deirdre On 31 January 2012 13:17, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Matthias, > > thank you for the clarifying reply, but I'd tend to raise questions anyway: > while tweeting may be overheard by the power that be, > *tweeting is used and intended by both sides of the echange as PRIVATE > communications* > they spoke in their "private mode" > subject to all the personal rules of such an exchange. > They would not have spoken so in public, had they been in public, > out of the concerns the judge mentioned. But no public was present. > > All of us have "special words" and "hidden messages" > wee share - it is part of the "in group" feel. > A good example is the use of the "f-word" which, in private conversation > simply emphasizes, but has not literal meaning. > > Now when these words are overheard, and brutally taken out of the private > realm and into the public space, > they must offend. But the error is with the authorities, not with those > who spoke privately, and intended to do so. > > I'm concerned not only that private conversations are overheard, > but the very use of private language be banned > or subject to PC rules. > > In NZ a "anti-smacking" law was introduced wich, > in my view, risks having a "morality policemen" inside every home. > I'm not speaking of violence against children - that's covered, and no > need for further law. > But to go as far as spanking... it's frightening. > Life is an ongoing process > the law is a final stop > > Aldo > > > On 31 January 2012 17:42, Matthias C. Kettemann < > matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote: > >> Generally, yes, but one man's joke is another man's threat. In the >> 'Twitter joke trial' in the UK a man was fined for tweeting - as a joke, he >> argued - that he would blow an airport 'sky high' if it didn't open in >> time. The appeals court judge in his case (dismissing his appeal) wrote (as >> summarized by UK HR Blog) that as an "educated man in his mid-20s, [he] >> must at least have been aware that in the current climate of concern about >> terrorist threats, his message might be taken as menacing – the mental >> element of the offence (that is, what he was thinking at the time) was >> therefore also made out." See: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/** >> 2010/12/02/do-offensive-**tweeters-have-freedom-of-**expression-rights/ >> >> 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. >> >> Seriously >> Matthias >> >> >> >> Am 31.01.2012 16:40, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": >> >> 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>> 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>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> >> Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen >> Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) >> M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) >> F | +43 316 380 9455 >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at >> Blog | internationallawandtheinternet**.blogspot.com >> >> >> -- >> >> Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> Teaching and Research Fellow >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations >> University of Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) >> M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) >> F | +43 316 380 9455 >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at >> Blog | internationallawandtheinternet**.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > -- “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 toml at communisphere.com Tue Jan 31 13:18:32 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:18:32 -0500 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> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <4F283078.8010608@communisphere.com> Agreed. There's clearly a chilling effect to this, and I hope http://www.chillingeffects.org/ or another entity addresses the limitations such actions impose. Tom Lowenhaupt On 1/31/2012 11:53 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 13:38:34 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:38:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: How can we effectively discuss current issues? (SOPA, webinars, questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Tim, for a very thoughtful reply. I'll have to see how, later tonight, send the ball over the net in a meaningful way, and keep the ping pong going. To your latest point: I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself does? Or something else? SUROWIECKI's point is "diversity" of opinion. The more the bettr - it is like a social "trial and error" game we play. We are more likely to find a solution if 1000 imperfect brains think, that if an even superior brain does, simply because he is not able to grasp all points of view. People then have to think for themselves, not just reflexively agree with others are saying. By posing the question is "voting" terms, and shortcutting the discussion, we pauperise the process and are more likely to end up with an inferior solution. Twitter tends to paurperise the discussion (not the information). This is dangerous. I've just received in the mail Richard SENNETT (2012): *Together: the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation.* ** on pg.8 he states the argment of the book: "Modern society is 'de-skilling' people in practicing cooperation. (...) People are losing the skills to deal with intractable differences as material inequality isolates them, short-term labour makes their social contacts more superficial and activates anxiety about the Other." In my latest blog I've provocatively labelled twitter as "virtual pheromones" - they provide communication all right, as pheromones do, by they do not trigger creativity as change, which is the essence of a culture based society. I see twitter as just one of several "technologies" which, if improperly used, lead to this de-skilling. And it scares me - for change is the only chance we've got to save ourselves by the skin of our teeth. Aldo On 31 January 2012 11:38, Tim Davies wrote: > Aldo, > > This is an interesting debate. I was trying to compose a response in > blog-post form - but will instead opt for the moment for some responses > in-line below. > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > >> *Ginger Paque : Personally, I disagree, because when an online >> communication gets 'too interactive', we have chaos, and I think that >> short, pithy comments or questions are preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth >> limitations must be taken into consideration as well. This is one advantage >> to an email list like the IGC: it allows for full multi-party discussion. >> * >> >> *Ricardo: i do agree that short communication works better. Of course, >> it should be well sistematized (is this the right word? Hehe) and everyone >> on the webinar should agree with a document on a wiki or pad, * >> >> ** >> > > Ginger and Ricardo point to one of the properties of short communication > that can be very valuable in online dialogues - it can scale to involve a > larger number of participants who each get to offer some input. It's hard > to hold a deep dialogue with a lot of people (note Plato's dialogues rarely > have a large crowd of characters), whereas the shorter form communication > enabled by small comment boxes can support more people to be part of a > conversation in a short time. > > As Ginger and Ricardo alude to - this can lead to a chaotic conversations, > or a cacophony of voices - or to some voices still dominating the > discussion. There are two complementary responses I think to this: one is > active (open) facilitation of a dialogue when there are a large number of > people taking part; the second is in having good platforms that help > everyone make short comments in semi-structured ways, weaving > twitter-length contributions collaboratively into a larger whole. > > >> I have raised an issue in my blog (The twitter is the message), on which >> I invited you all to reflect. What I got back was two votes (see above): >> yours, with a “vote explication” that was no more than an assertion. >> >> Of course short is better than long. My issue was whether the twitter >> format was structurally so short as to stifle the very essence of a >> dialogue – which is to deliberate. >> > > It can be useful to distinguish between the twitter format with a > time-limit, twitter-length communication over time, and communication on > twitter. > > Putting an arbitrary limit of 140 characters on input into a short > synchronous online dialogue does seem likely to shape the discussion > towards short assertions, rather than expression of more deliberative and > complex ideas - certainly unless the community develop shorthands to fit > their communication within the limit. > > However, when communication is extended over time, as it is in many > twitter conversations, which are asychronous, then a lot of deliberation > and nuance can start to be incorporated. Scholars of Computer Mediated > Communication have looked at how, with reduced cues from non-verbal > interactions people over time compensate and find ways to pick up meaning > not only from the content of a message, but also the timing, sequencing and > other signals. Twitter itself creates some very nuanced social conventions, > of reference to issues with hash-tags, people with @'s and so-on. > Conversations can take place on a slow-burn over weeks and months on > Twitter itself, enabling interesting forms of deliberation. > > >> Paul got the message, but then drifted into a different – though very >> noteworthy issue – that of reception. In his framework length of reply is >> irrelevant. Money determines who gets the message. And indeed – in the >> future governments will no longer shut people up; they’ll just render them >> ineffectual. When was it last time a soapbox man in Hyde Park started a >> revolution? >> >> Democracy ought to be deliberative. By rushing to vote (agree/disagree) >> even before having taken the time to reflect, you have terminated the >> discussion. The rest of the group stood in silence – and I presume they >> agreed with you (qui tacet consentire videtur). It was in ways a plebiscite. >> > > Not necessarily. We may have been aware that a detailed reply takes time. > Quick vote-style replies can move a dialogue on, and then the reply to > those can draw other people in... > >> Coming back now to my point: take any of Plato’s great dialogues and >> replace all the entries in it (but those of Socrates) by a twitter message. >> Then tell me whether you think it has improved the symposion text. >> > > Not if you leave it in Tweet-form in the book. Take Plato's dialogues and > tweet them over time, interacting with those who reply, and building a > dialogue through interaction - now you have changed, and for some of the > audience, improved the text. > > There will be those who get to engage with the ideas for the first time > seeing them in short form. For some the short-form will crystalise things > they had already read, for others, it will act as a teaser - encouraging > them to look at the longer and more in-depth form. > > Twitter-like communication is one layer of dialogue. Different layers > engage different people at different times - our challenge > in facilitating dialogue is to link these layers if we can. > > >> My blog very imperfectly pointed to the essence of being human (you know >> that latest of the tailless apes) – their ability to have common goals, and >> to create new ones by deliberation. The Western idea of the (intellectual) >> hero who points to the way forward and is followed by group is historically >> inaccurate. Because deliberation is oral and cannot be remembered, we >> ascribe the outcome to a superior person. >> > > This is a really interesting observation - and I think somewhere where we > have to keep a watchful eye on how Twitter-like communications impact > people. Any digital conversation can now make a choice over whether or not > a permanent record of the dialogue will be held - or whether only the > outcome will be recorded and enter into the public sphere. > > Negotiating whether or not the dialogue should be on or off-record again > is a facilitation and community choice that should be consciously made. > Some people value the ability to look back on the record to see how their > views have changed (e.g. in working with young people, the ability to look > back over their online traces and see how they have developed as an > individual can be very valuable); for others, the record might create the > risk of attributing the outcomes to an individual rather than the > collective, or might limit the positions someone can take in the future > because of their past expressions. > > >> Twitter-style discourse tends to reduce the interaction to a vote – >> democratic for sure. Better than a decision from on high by the elite. It >> comes at a price, however: it negates the very essence of a >> deliberation: the common reflection and input from various points of view. >> The intellectual “trial and error” that allows the best idea to survive. >> > > I'm not sure this is true. Each of the above 'vote' like statements also > offered some reasons. In the 'limited bandwidth' of a short message, > individuals do need to make explicit what might otherwise be left as > implicit views (opinion on the debate are often encoded rather than stated > in longer messages, but are no less present) > > Facilitation and the set-up of any discussion can reduce it to a vote or > not - but unless the medium is a voting button (and even then...) it's > usually flesible... > > James SUROWIECKI in *The Wisdom of crowds – Why the many are smarter >> than the few* makes precisely this point: when people deliberate (i.e. >> reflect for themselves), the outcome is – taking the long view – better >> than that of any expert or elite. When people influence each other, rather >> than reflect independently, one gets hysterias and manias. >> In the past elite did the thinking, and compliance by the majority was >> secured by (moral) authority. I see no improvement in having the celebrity >> of the day do the same as the elite, and her opinion being subject to >> plebiscite by twitter. Except that there is a huge turnover in celebrities. >> > > I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you arguing that Twitter-like > communication leads to a clustering of opinions? Or that twitter itself > does? Or something else? > > >> Aldo >> > > All the best > > Tim > > >> >> On 27 January 2012 14:30, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> Aldo, Diplo's resident contrarian, criticises Diplo's webinars and >>> modern communication, asking 'Is the medium the twitter?' at >>> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-medium-is-the-twitter/ He >>> argues that the way in which the Chinese 'Party universities', among >>> others, discuss issues, is conceptually and practically more effective (and >>> congenial) than modern webinar/Twitter-technique communication. Personally, >>> I disagree, because when an online communication gets 'too interactive', we >>> have chaos, and I think that short, pithy comments or questions are >>> preferable in a webinar. Bandwidth limitations must be taken into >>> consideration as well. This is one advantage to an email list like the IGC: >>> it allows for full multi-party discussion. >>> >>> Please let us know your views about this dilemma as we both try to >>> improve our communication, and explore the topic as a concept for improved >>> e-participation. You can also join us for the next webinar and see the >>> potentials and limitations of this medium, as we discuss SOPA, PIPA and the >>> recent online blackout activities: >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/copyright-infringement-sopapipa-megaupload >>> >>> Personally, I am wondering if the push to stop SOPA has strengthened >>> ACTA. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> Diplo Foundation >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> >>> *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: >>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org* >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > > 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. > -- 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Jan 31 13:38:44 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:08:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F283534.9020104@cis-india.org> Riaz K Tayob [2012-01-31 20:53]: > Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US It is not 'caution' that is urged, but rather 'caution against usage of irony'. Irony, Kenneth Burke notes, is one of four fundamental tropes of figuration. It would seem that some people have no clue about irony, synecdoche, metonymy, and metaphor. As they say in America: you can't cure stupid. Also, storm-teacup, mountain-molehill, etc. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jan 31 13:43:52 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:43:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F283078.8010608@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4F70D6B2B3C24408817A89B58F50E74B@UserVAIO> Tom, BTW, what is happening re: the MAG selection... I haven't seen anything on this on the list and surely the deadline is approaching... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lowenhaupt Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Agreed. There's clearly a chilling effect to this, and I hope http://www.chillingeffects.org/ or another entity addresses the limitations such actions impose. Tom Lowenhaupt On 1/31/2012 11:53 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: I think most people are missing the point here. The fact that Homeland Security is monitoring tweets of anyone and everyone is very scary to me. The fact that they reacted poorly to foreign slang is a minor issue. Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Jan 31 13:47:49 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:17:49 +0530 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> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <4F283755.1030504@cis-india.org> Kerry Brown [2012-01-31 22:23]: > Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? Because most people would, and very rightly so, accuse them of laxity and dereliction of duty if they didn't. I have not seen a single cogent argument as to why they should not. If it is the duty of the immigration officers to prevent untoward foreigners from entering the country, then they should use all public information at their disposal, at the very least, to come to that conclusion. It is another matter whether Twitter banter should form the basis of their opinions, but then you don't seem to be interested in that question. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jan 31 13:57:54 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:57:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I am curious if anyone has any information to share about the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting taking place mid-Feb in Geneva. As well, are there any specific issues that the caucus believes should be raised concerning the positions left still open in the IGF secretariat and/or concerns about the 2012 host country. There isn't much time, and as such would be great to start the conversation now. In the meantime, let me share with all of you a link to a news article regarding Baku hosting the 2012 Eurovision contest in late May. In Baku, Eurovision Supervisor Talks Of Human Rights, Hopes For Event http://www.rferl.org/content/azerbaijan_eurovision_2012/24465301.html 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jan 31 13:59:55 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:59:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F283755.1030504@cis-india.org> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> <4F283755.1030504@cis-india.org> Message-ID: We'll have to disagree on this. I don't think monitoring public communications has any place in a free society. I know it happens. That doesn't mean I have to agree with or approve of it. It is too easily abused and it is too easily misinterpreted. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash > Sent: January-31-12 10:48 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from > US > > Kerry Brown [2012-01-31 22:23]: > > Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? > > Because most people would, and very rightly so, accuse them of laxity and > dereliction of duty if they didn't. > > I have not seen a single cogent argument as to why they should not. If it is > the duty of the immigration officers to prevent untoward foreigners from > entering the country, then they should use all public information at their > disposal, at the very least, to come to that conclusion. > > It is another matter whether Twitter banter should form the basis of their > opinions, but then you don't seem to be interested in that question. > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jan 31 14:25:59 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:25:59 +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> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> <4F283755.1030504@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Dear all, this brings up my further worry in connection with"freedom of speech". It is not just bad enough that governments are establishing "good-citizenship ratings" but that we'll never have access to the algorythms they use to come to conclusions. These algorythms are not accessible under The Bill of Rights - to my knowledge nor would I be albe to understand them, and I suspect the HS's own experts don't understand them as they grow complex. A machine is in charge, mindless, all powerful. HS is supposed to "connect the dots" in this particular case there were no dots to connect - it was one sole, solitary utterance, picked up in communication space, probably uttered outside the US territory and used to deny entry (without due process - you sign those away as you fill in the grren slip on the airplane). Stupidity is infinite Aldfo On 31 January 2012 19:59, Kerry Brown wrote: > We'll have to disagree on this. I don't think monitoring public > communications has any place in a free society. I know it happens. That > doesn't mean I have to agree with or approve of it. It is too easily abused > and it is too easily misinterpreted. > > Kerry Brown > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Pranesh Prakash > > Sent: January-31-12 10:48 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred > from > > US > > > > Kerry Brown [2012-01-31 22:23]: > > > Why are the monitoring tweets in the first place? > > > > Because most people would, and very rightly so, accuse them of laxity and > > dereliction of duty if they didn't. > > > > I have not seen a single cogent argument as to why they should not. If > it is > > the duty of the immigration officers to prevent untoward foreigners from > > entering the country, then they should use all public information at > their > > disposal, at the very least, to come to that conclusion. > > > > It is another matter whether Twitter banter should form the basis of > their > > opinions, but then you don't seem to be interested in that question. > > > > -- > > Pranesh Prakash > > Programme Manager > > Centre for Internet and Society > > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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