From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jul 31 17:18:22 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:18:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld Message-ID: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Tue Jul 31 18:38:18 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:38:18 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Finfisher Spy Kit Revealed in Bahrain In-Reply-To: <65F39474-B4D9-461A-9CCA-214C46D9160E@privaterra.org> References: <65F39474-B4D9-461A-9CCA-214C46D9160E@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <034101cd6f6d$3021eae0$9065c0a0$@uol.com.br> Very interesting Robert! the problem with prohibitive laws, not to sell, not to produce etc etc, building a difficult barrier to get I what someone desires, there will always be someone keen to sell the way to easy trespass. As we say here: "to build difficult is the way to sell facility" Best, -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Robert Guerra Enviada em: quarta-feira, 25 de julho de 2012 10:46 Para: Internet Governance Caucus Assunto: [governance] Finfisher Spy Kit Revealed in Bahrain (sharing this with the governance list. Apologies for cross posting..) For Immediate Release >From Bahrain With Love: FinFisher's Spy Kit Exposed? July 25, 2012 -- The Citizen Lab announces the publication of a detailed post analyzing several pieces of malware targeting Bahraini dissidents, shared with us by Bloomberg News. The analysis suggests that the malware used is "FinSpy," part of the commercial intrusion kit, Finfisher, distributed by the United Kingdom-based company, Gamma International. The commercial market for computer network attack, exploitation, and targeted surveillance products and services is growing. Several reports have identified these products and services being marketed to regimes that violate human rights or employ them to quell political opposition. However, the market is shrouded in secrecy with some companies going so far as advertising their clandestine capabilities. The market has been controversial: In September 2011, the EU Parliament passed a resolution that bans the export of information technology systems that can be used "in connection with a violation of human rights, democratic principles or freedom of speech [.] by using interception technologies and digital data transfer devices for monitoring mobile phones and text messages and targeted surveillance of Internet use." While there have been reports and descriptions of Gamma International's products (including revelations that they had been sold to the Egyptian government's state security apparatus), this is the first public analysis of the Finfisher toolkit. Malware analysis by Morgan Marquis-Boire and Bill Marczak. Assistance from Seth Hardy and Harry Tuttle gratefully received. Special thanks to John Scott-Railton. Thanks to Marcia Hofmann and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We would also like to acknowledge Privacy International for their continued work and graciously provided background information on Gamma International. For full report, please see: https://citizenlab.org/2012/07/from-bahrain-with-love-finfishers-spy-kit-exp osed/ For Bloomberg news report, please see here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/cyber-attacks-on-activists-traced-t o-finfisher-spyware-of-gamma.html For press inquiries, please contact info at citizenlab.org Ronald J. Deibert Professor of Political Science Director, The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and The Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto r.deibert at utoronto.ca http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 06:32:01 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 10:32:01 -0000 Subject: [governance] FW: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! Message-ID: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Riemens Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 5:45 PM To: nettime-l at kein.org Subject: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! Today is the last day in service of France's "bogus brother of the Internet" (Le Monde), that strange square box called the Minitel, launched in 1981/1982. The Minitel has been object of much derision once Internet use became (relatively) widespread outside of France, yet it did antedate the 'public Internet' by at least 15 years, and, contrary to a commonly held belief, the Minitel did not at all hamper the diffusion of the Internet in France after it had really taken of (say, by the second half of the nineties). The Minitel had a number of drawbacks, the most important for users being the lack of graphic interface (and thus it spawned much ingenuity in 'ascii art'), but it had a lot of advantages for service providers, as connection was charged and nearly every content priced (between FF 0,02 and FF 1,41 /minute) and directly billed to the user's phone subscription, with the takings neatly shared between the (state) phone authority and the providers, enabling the former to offer the whole appliance for free and still make a robust profit in the process. Another funny feature of the Minitel (and the one that made it so profitable) was its accidental extension into the realm of (text-based) pornography and sexual dating, known in French as "la messagerie rose" (the pink messaging service) - that's how grandpa (or his grandchild) raked those hefty telephone bills, not by checking out the SNCF timetable (the state railways - still rather pricey at FF 0,34/minute). On the technical side, the Minitel was the losing pawn in the end in the 'system battle' between the centralised Transpac/X.25 network and the distributed TCP/IP based Internet (whose basic feature, packet switching, is claimed by the French to be rather Louis Pouzin's than Vint Cerf's invention ;-) Transpac also goes this evening, together with the Minitel. Last but not least, the Minitel did make the large swathes of the French population IT-savvy, or at least IT acquainted, ten years ahead of the rest of the world. It's penetration (in 'la France profonde', deep France) was astonishing, and has only recently been matched by Internet connectivity, since it went together with the telephone, but a no extra connection of subscription cost (phone customers were offered the option between the paper directory or a Minitel box). And as today's Le Monde article points out, the Minitel was the last of France's technological 'Grands Projets'. So let's salute this evening this swansong of the 'Colbertist State'. Le Monde article's is here: http://bit.ly/MuG57t "Le Minitel, "faux frhre" d'Internet, ferme difinitivement" see also: http://on.msnbc.com/Lc9LBR "Minitel online terminals recycled after three decades of use in France" !DSPAM:2676,4fef9ec225671424839028! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 1 06:54:28 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:54:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! In-Reply-To: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> References: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FF02C64.70309@gih.com> On 01/07/2012 12:32, michael gurstein wrote : > -----Original Message----- > From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org > [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of Patrice Riemens > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 5:45 PM > To: nettime-l at kein.org > Subject: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! > > Today is the last day in service of France's "bogus brother of the Internet" > (Le Monde), that strange square box called the Minitel, launched in > 1981/1982. > > The Minitel has been object of much derision once Internet use became > (relatively) widespread outside of France, yet it did antedate the 'public > Internet' by at least 15 years, and, contrary to a commonly held belief, the > Minitel did not at all hamper the diffusion of the Internet in France after > it had really taken of (say, by the second half of the nineties). > > Thanks for the pointer to the article. It was a product that was way past its shelf date. I beg to differ re: hampering the diffusion of Internet in France. In the early to mid nineties I had several meetings with high ranking officials at France Telecom (who shall remain nameless because I still hold them in shame for their responses) where I had all the trouble in telling them that the Internet was the future. The... idiots... I had in front of me had put all their faith in VideoText and future versions of the Minitel, telling me that the populace was not ready to use full computers which were too expensive, too complicated, too "American" for residential use. In short, Internet was "too American" and, "sacrebleu", people would need to learn English to use it. Furthermore, I had no answer to their question, quote verbatim: "With the minitel, we have a pay for use business model that works. With this... Internet thing, everything is free, so how will you be able to make one Franc with something that's free? It simply will not work." As a result, France Telecom and its Global One Alliance partners never became the leading drivers for the Internet in Europe. By being too focussed on state actors and its then visionless TelCos, Europe missed the boat when the wave hit a few months later. The "Grand Projets" in the 60s and 70s, most of them having been a success, led to a generation of politically inclined, complacent managers running the show in Europe in the late eighties, with visionaries leaving for Silicon Valley. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 1 07:19:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:19:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! In-Reply-To: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> References: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <5gy3q5oWJD8PFACB@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9 at UserVAIO>, at 10:32:01 on Sun, 1 Jul 2012, michael gurstein writes >Today is the last day in service of France's "bogus brother of the Internet" >(Le Monde), that strange square box called the Minitel, launched in >1981/1982. Interestingly, this April was also when the BBC's very similar (visually, anyway) CEEFAX service (launched 1974) was switched off, for almost all users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceefax -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 1 08:19:08 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:49:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Oversight In-Reply-To: <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net>, <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> John, You provide a good view of how some public policy issues that get encountered in various tech coordination activities get addressed. There indeed are some existing ways in which the concerned public policy considerations are soaked in from the environment, if in an ad hoc manner, which, I understand is also how you see it. You do rightly stress 'ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination. Increasingly, it appears to me that the concerned public policy issues are becoming more important and at the same time more complex, and the manner in which they get incorporated in the technical coordination function may increasingly be inadequate. (I think that this has happened in the case of new gtlds, producing very unsatisfactory results, something that I will take up separately.) The oversight issue is about developing an appropriate and adequate method for incorporating the relevant public policy concerns in technical coordination functions. But doing it in a manner that is not ad hoc, based on proper law and policy frameworks arrived at through a transparent and participatory process, and employing duly laid out procedures and methods. At present there is a kind of schizophrenia whereby ICANN is caught between its own and other actor's assessment of it being basically a technical coordination body with limited capacity of dealing with public policy considerations (which is inter alia also NCUC's stand) and the increasingly important and complex public policy considerations that are implicated in many technical coordination functions. How to solve this conundrum is the main issue that we are facing here. parminder On Saturday 30 June 2012 11:50 AM, John Curran wrote: > Ian - > > Good point... (I was reading and replying via a mobile phone and > misread the level of quoting.) > > In any case, I hope the information is useful. ICANN as a simply a > mechanism for technical > coordination of Internet identifiers is relatively understandable; > i.e. a body which performs that sole task, while taking accepted > social and public policy norms into > consideration and working > under broad and transparent oversight by the Internet community > in its greatest sense (individuals, governments, civil society, > business, etc.) > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > On Jun 30, 2012, at 12:15 AM, "Ian Peter" > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> You are actually responding to Parminder’s query here, but thanks for >> the input! >> >> Ian >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *John Curran >> *Date: *Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:54:51 +0000 >> *To: *Ian Peter >> *Cc: *"governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese >> preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? >> >> On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> This then brings us to the issue of how to deal with the >> 'oversight' function - defined as dealing with public policy >> issues concerning CIR management (which includes names, numbers >> and protocols). This issue also pointedly comes to the fore from >> the discussion in the FBI-DEA-IPv6 thread. I am a surprised at >> the lack of clarity even among veterans of this space about who >> deals with such a key public policy issue and how, with clear >> opposite views whether ICANN should be dealing with it or not. We >> know that important public policy issues connecting directly to >> CIR management will keep on arising in the future, and perhaps, >> multiplying in number. We need to foresight how to deal with >> this situation. It is not possible to sweep this important issues >> under the carpet. >> >> >> Ian - >> >> Without passing judgement on the current system for technical >> coordination >> of Internet addresses, I will attempt to describe how it >> accommodates public >> policy issues as they are encountered. >> >> Public policy issues do indeed come up in the policy discussions at >> the >> Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), but these issues are taken >> along with other >> factors (such as technical ability to route IP addresses, business >> concerns >> about availability of IP addresses for service providers, civil >> society concerns >> about privacy, etc.) and all are considered in the formation of >> policy. This has >> led to policies which consider various public policy issues (for >> example, in the >> ARIN region, residential privacy concerns cause that information to >> be redacted >> from the public Whois directory per community developed policy.) >> >> Each RIR has its own community which considers policy proposals, >> and those >> that are supported are adopted via the processes in the region. >> While that can >> (and does) lead to slightly different policies between regions, it >> is also a strength >> in that policies that are felt to be important can be adopted by a >> region without >> having to await a global policy process. "Good" policies do tend >> to get adopted >> in multiple regions, and global policies are indeed possible if all >> of the regions >> agree to the same policy text. >> >> At present, there are no policies in the ARIN region which directly >> address the >> matter which the FBI raised regarding potential lack of incentive >> for accuracy in >> future IPv6 Whois information. In fact, there are already >> policies which require >> accurate information to be present, but the issue being raising is >> whether such >> industry-led self-governance policies will suffice for insuring >> that the Whois >> information remains accurate (in the absence of need to obtain new >> address >> blocks as exists today with IPv4.) >> >> Considering the public policy issues involved with the potential of >> a top-down >> or "regulatory" approach might be necessary, but that type of >> solution could >> easily be beyond ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination. >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 1 08:37:19 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 05:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] news from Baku Message-ID: <1341146239.28441.YahooMailMobile@web161903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Aye Shaila -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 1 09:00:44 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:30:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation 2 - other/general public policy issues Message-ID: <4FF049FC.1020309@itforchange.net> Hi All Oversight of tech coordination functions is one part of what has been called as 'enhanced cooperation' (EC). The other part, which I consider as much more important, but generally neglected in the EC discussions, concerns other or general Internet related public policy issues. The best way to understand these sets of functions is to look at the work of OECD's Committee on Information, Communications and Computers Policy (CCICP), and also at Council of Europe's Internet policy mechanisms. These Internet policy mechanisms do not 'directly' deal with issues under the ambit of the bodies managing Internet's critical infrastructure (the ICANN + system). These internet policy mechanisms have come up policy frameworks and guidelines like Principles for Internet related Policies, Intermediary guidelines, are also looking into search engine guidelines, and social network guidelines, and so on....... These bodies also facilitate treaties on Internet related issues among the member countries (OECD's ACTA, CoE's cybersecurity treaty, etc)..... So, after looking at the 'oversight' issue, as we did on this list for the last few weeks, the second key point of the 'enhanced cooperation' discussion is how to institutionally deal with /*general Internet related public policy issues/* (to demarcate them from those directly connecting to CIR management). These 'global' policy issues are today being undemocratically dealt by bodies whose membership is limited to a few richest countries. Why should these /*general Internet related public policy issues/* (GPPIs) not be considered by institutions and bodies that have representation of all countries, rich and developing ones. Civil Society, and IGC, need to answer this question. Remove the oversight function of India's proposed UN Committee on Internet Related Policies (something I think India, and other CIRP backers, may be willing to consider) and we have almost the exact function and structure as of OECD's CCICP, but with all countries being present rather than just the rich ones. (and a more expansive participation model than the CCICP). On what basis can we be opposed to such an institutional structure, as one way of taking forward 'enhanced cooperation'? This is an important part of the enhanced cooperation discussion. Especially, for civil society, which is perhaps more concerned with social, economic, cultural and political issues rather than security, technical etc issues which more centrally implicated on the 'oversight' side of enhanced cooperation. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jul 1 12:20:14 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:20:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Oversight In-Reply-To: <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:19 AM, parminder wrote: > John, > > You provide a good view of how some public policy issues that get encountered in various tech coordination activities get addressed. There indeed are some existing ways in which the concerned public policy considerations are soaked in from the environment, if in an ad hoc manner, which, I understand is also how you see it. I believe they get incorporated in an ad-hoc manner only because there is a lack of consensus on how and where "social and public policy norms" are documented by society. Having no clear expression of public policy requirements and having dozens of expressions of public policy requirements are both equally bad, as what is needed for guidance in technical protocol development and identifier coordination is the input of single statements of which "social and public policy norms" are applicable. For example, a clear requirement exists with respect to privacy of residential data within Canada (due to strong data privacy statutes) but it is not quite as clear in the US nor in the 25 Caribbean economies in the ARIN region. As we have to make regional policy which works for everyone, the resulting policy on level of information in the public (IP) Whois directory basically must consider the clear policy requirements from Canada and allow for the redaction of that information if and when service providers assign large IP address blocks for individual subscribers. We have no conflicting guidance, so it was easy to accomodate as required. Having clear guidance on the social and public policy norms lets those working on Internet protocols and protocol identifier management actively avoid having conflicts with such guidance. It's still a difficult job, but it is doable, in that the various implications of protocol or identifier management can be held up against the received guidance to make sure that the final implemented processes for identifier management will indeed be compatible. When no such guidance or (almost as bad) multiple conflicting guidance is received, then you are left with a predominantly technical community attempting to work on social and public matters to fill the gap in social and public policy norms. The job will get done, but It's not pretty, and may not make anyone happy with the result. > You do rightly stress 'ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination. Increasingly, it appears to me that the concerned public policy issues are becoming more important and at the same time more complex, and the manner in which they get incorporated in the technical coordination function may increasingly be inadequate. Parminder - It is inadequate, but that's because it is the wrong tool for the job. If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public policy matters, it would be best to drive that to resolution down to basic principles of agreement elsewhere before attempting to apply those principles to technical matters such as protocol development and identifier management. > The oversight issue is about developing an appropriate and adequate method for incorporating the relevant public policy concerns in technical coordination functions. There are two uses of the term "oversight" with respect to ICANN: 1) Oversight of ICANN in the overall performance of its mission This is how the term "oversight" is used by many in the Internet community, and has been historically been a role held by the USG via the JPA, and has transitioned to the reviews performed under the Affirmation of Commitments. This is about reviews of structure, process, mechanisms, etc. 2) "Oversight" of ICANN during the policy development process This is a colloquial use of the term "oversight", in that it would probably be better phrased "Monitoring and guiding ICANN when it is performing policy development to produce politically useful outcomes" The problem with such "oversight" is that it actually presumes that ICANN is an appropriate and useful forum for working out all of the world's previously unresolved public policy matters. For example, if governments and civil society had a single clear norm for what constitutes "decent speech", then its application in a technical setting would be straightforward. Absent a clear social & public policy norm for such content determination, attempting to re-address the same question within ICANN is not likely to produce any better outcome. Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values: "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations." Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high degree of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring about consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists today. (and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it work on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet matters...) > But doing it in a manner that is not ad hoc, based on proper law and policy frameworks arrived at through a transparent and participatory process, and employing duly laid out procedures and methods. Full agreement on the above statement - insuring this is a major part of the current review processes. > At present there is a kind of schizophrenia whereby ICANN is caught between its own and other actor's assessment of it being basically a technical coordination body with limited capacity of dealing with public policy considerations (which is inter alia also NCUC's stand) and the increasingly important and complex public policy considerations that are implicated in many technical coordination functions. How to solve this conundrum is the main issue that we are facing here. If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those documents should be formally submitted into the policy development processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core values, for taking them into consideration in setting policies for technical identifier coordination and management for the Internet. If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses together on these matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger in scope that ICANN's mission. FYI, /John p.s. Disclaimer: My views alone. The thoughts expressed may not be suitable for any specific purpose, including world domination. This forum may not grant time to responsible parties with opposing viewpoints. May cause mental staining; please try out on an unexposed section of mind first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sun Jul 1 19:29:18 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 23:29:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Oversight In-Reply-To: References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48343F6F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi all, Internet Governance is not buing built as a grand structure from a master plan, nor can it. We are exploring it heuristically, i.e., in a problem-solving mode, not as a laboratory experiment adjunct to a theory group working with Gedankenexperimenten (thought experiments) in a vacuum. It cannnot be otherwise because the problems, the dynamics with which the problems change, the stakeholders involved in the solution of each one, and the constraints on the tools (people, understanding, resources, etc.) vary across problems and in time. This is being found out not only in the best practice in the field but also in some of the more academic work about it, and now in the many courses taught about Internet Governance by the Diplo Foundation, the northern and southern branches of SSIG, people attending ICANN meetings, participants in ISOC e-learning, participants in RIR, ccNSO, and similar training activities, former WALC attendees, and others. Parminder, a few weeks ago it still seemed that the only thing that separated you from John Curran and David Conrad was ideological differences. Now that those are well known, your arguments and theirs have laid bare that there is a deeper, persistent problem; you really have a very bad relationship with the facts. Having this large community of experts teaching only one student is contrary to the economics of education, where a more balanced proportion exists (often, the number of students is larger than that of the instructors.) Since I do not think that the continuance of your education in this model is scalable, and it is excruciating to watch on email, I am unsubscribing from this list in my next chance. I will continue to read the archives and will ask to resubscribe in some other opportunity. I do invite you to use one of the many opportunities already mentioned to complete this acquisition of information. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org] Enviado el: domingo, 01 de julio de 2012 11:20 Hasta: parminder CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Oversight On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:19 AM, parminder wrote: John, You provide a good view of how some public policy issues that get encountered in various tech coordination activities get addressed. There indeed are some existing ways in which the concerned public policy considerations are soaked in from the environment, if in an ad hoc manner, which, I understand is also how you see it. I believe they get incorporated in an ad-hoc manner only because there is a lack of consensus on how and where "social and public policy norms" are documented by society. Having no clear expression of public policy requirements and having dozens of expressions of public policy requirements are both equally bad, as what is needed for guidance in technical protocol development and identifier coordination is the input of single statements of which "social and public policy norms" are applicable. For example, a clear requirement exists with respect to privacy of residential data within Canada (due to strong data privacy statutes) but it is not quite as clear in the US nor in the 25 Caribbean economies in the ARIN region. As we have to make regional policy which works for everyone, the resulting policy on level of information in the public (IP) Whois directory basically must consider the clear policy requirements from Canada and allow for the redaction of that information if and when service providers assign large IP address blocks for individual subscribers. We have no conflicting guidance, so it was easy to accomodate as required. Having clear guidance on the social and public policy norms lets those working on Internet protocols and protocol identifier management actively avoid having conflicts with such guidance. It's still a difficult job, but it is doable, in that the various implications of protocol or identifier management can be held up against the received guidance to make sure that the final implemented processes for identifier management will indeed be compatible. When no such guidance or (almost as bad) multiple conflicting guidance is received, then you are left with a predominantly technical community attempting to work on social and public matters to fill the gap in social and public policy norms. The job will get done, but It's not pretty, and may not make anyone happy with the result. You do rightly stress 'ICANN's limited mandate of technical coordination. Increasingly, it appears to me that the concerned public policy issues are becoming more important and at the same time more complex, and the manner in which they get incorporated in the technical coordination function may increasingly be inadequate. Parminder - It is inadequate, but that's because it is the wrong tool for the job. If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public policy matters, it would be best to drive that to resolution down to basic principles of agreement elsewhere before attempting to apply those principles to technical matters such as protocol development and identifier management. The oversight issue is about developing an appropriate and adequate method for incorporating the relevant public policy concerns in technical coordination functions. There are two uses of the term "oversight" with respect to ICANN: 1) Oversight of ICANN in the overall performance of its mission This is how the term "oversight" is used by many in the Internet community, and has been historically been a role held by the USG via the JPA, and has transitioned to the reviews performed under the Affirmation of Commitments. This is about reviews of structure, process, mechanisms, etc. 2) "Oversight" of ICANN during the policy development process This is a colloquial use of the term "oversight", in that it would probably be better phrased "Monitoring and guiding ICANN when it is performing policy development to produce politically useful outcomes" The problem with such "oversight" is that it actually presumes that ICANN is an appropriate and useful forum for working out all of the world's previously unresolved public policy matters. For example, if governments and civil society had a single clear norm for what constitutes "decent speech", then its application in a technical setting would be straightforward. Absent a clear social & public policy norm for such content determination, attempting to re-address the same question within ICANN is not likely to produce any better outcome. Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values: "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations." Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high degree of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring about consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists today. (and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it work on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet matters...) But doing it in a manner that is not ad hoc, based on proper law and policy frameworks arrived at through a transparent and participatory process, and employing duly laid out procedures and methods. Full agreement on the above statement - insuring this is a major part of the current review processes. At present there is a kind of schizophrenia whereby ICANN is caught between its own and other actor's assessment of it being basically a technical coordination body with limited capacity of dealing with public policy considerations (which is inter alia also NCUC's stand) and the increasingly important and complex public policy considerations that are implicated in many technical coordination functions. How to solve this conundrum is the main issue that we are facing here. If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those documents should be formally submitted into the policy development processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core values, for taking them into consideration in setting policies for technical identifier coordination and management for the Internet. If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses together on these matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger in scope that ICANN's mission. FYI, /John p.s. Disclaimer: My views alone. The thoughts expressed may not be suitable for any specific purpose, including world domination. This forum may not grant time to responsible parties with opposing viewpoints. May cause mental staining; please try out on an unexposed section of mind first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jul 2 00:16:53 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:16:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation 2 - other/general public policy issues In-Reply-To: <4FF049FC.1020309@itforchange.net> References: <4FF049FC.1020309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FF120B5.1070802@ciroap.org> On 01/07/12 21:00, parminder wrote: > Remove the oversight function of India's proposed UN Committee on > Internet Related Policies (something I think India, and other CIRP > backers, may be willing to consider) and we have almost the exact > function and structure as of OECD's CCICP, but with all countries > being present rather than just the rich ones. (and a more expansive > participation model than the CCICP). > > On what basis can we be opposed to such an institutional structure, > as one way of taking forward 'enhanced cooperation'? This is an > important part of the enhanced cooperation discussion. Especially, for > civil society, which is perhaps more concerned with social, economic, > cultural and political issues rather than security, technical etc > issues which more centrally implicated on the 'oversight' side of > enhanced cooperation. To answer this rhetorical question, it is because for many the UN is a bogeyman. In truth of course, the UN and its agencies are largely toothless and nothing to be scared of, the authoritarian regimes on one side balancing out the the corporate plutocracies on the other. Indeed we have more to fear from the continued lack of a body such as the CIRP, that could help to shape the behaviour actions of governments and corporations, than from its existence (particularly in the absence of an effective IGF, either). But this means that we can wait another few years to a decade until the status quo is more widely seen as intolerable and a UN-hosted body becomes a more palatable alternative, or we can simply excise the "UN" part of the CIRP and promote that the committee be a free-standing international body that would join the IETF and ICANN in their own areas of competence as a policy advisory body, albeit that governments would in that case be less attracted to participate in it as its authority would be less. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 2 02:13:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:43:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Oversight In-Reply-To: References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FF13BF5.2040704@itforchange.net> John I agree with every single thing you have written in this email; only you have put it all so much better than I have been able to :). I do not blame ICANN for being clumsy in dealing with public policy matters, because, as you stress, that is not its mandate. Yes, ICANN needs better and clearer public policy guidelines and principles to be able to do its core technical function. (Tunis agenda calls for developing such principles as one main function of 'enhanced cooperation'). However, those within ICANN and outside who ask for full autonomy of ICANN (from authoritative public policy guidance), need to explain how do they seek to expand ICANN roles into public policy areas as well. On what basis, and what would be the required changes to the ICANN?. I do see that you are completely against any such expansion, and so am I. Either ICANN does its own public policy, which is against its current mandate, or public policy directions come from outside. My case is that the present manner in which it gets its public policy directions is very problematic, unbalanced and undemocratic. I do give quarters to some level of bottom up and p2p consultative public policy inputting, but often that leaves the final decisions so fully and unaccountably in ICANN hands that it practically does its own substantive public policy, which, somewhat expectedly, mostly results in not too good results. The inept manner in which ICANN has dealt with the many public policy issues around new gtlds being a case in point. Over this year, we would hear much about this 'case'. You highlight very well the kind of difficulties that the ICANN system faces with regard to public policy issues impinging on its technical coordination work. Operationalising 'enhanced cooperation' is precisely about addressing this 'key problem'. However, it is not the idea to put some governments in charge who could be giving ad hoc directions to ICANN. We need a much more sophisticated response. My proposal was something like the following. A UN CIRP like body - without a direct oversight role like at present with the US - does soft policy work, develops policy principles and frameworks, explores spaces of possible agreements, enable treaties when required...... basically does the task that you describe so well as follows, "If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public policy matters, it would be best to drive that to resolution down to basic principles of agreement elsewhere before attempting to apply those principles to technical matters such as protocol development and identifier management." (John Curran) Then these policy principles and frameworks are variously communicated to the ICANN system. An internationalised oversight board takes over the oversight function currently performed by the US, but has a minimal direct inference possibility. It does review of structure, process, mechanisms etc, but also conveys the authoritative public policy principles developed at the UN CIRP to ICANN. A GAC like body is the more operational and regular interface with ICANN, giving advance inputs, review of decisions etc, based on the coded public policy principles. It would work more or less as at present but maybe with improved and better structured relationship with ICAAN board and other bodies. And as a final judicial review forum, the International court of justice can be asked to have a separate division for Internet related matters, as it does for some other areas. parminder On Sunday 01 July 2012 09:50 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:19 AM, parminder wrote: > >> John, >> >> You provide a good view of how some public policy issues that get >> encountered in various tech coordination activities get addressed. >> There indeed are some existing ways in which the concerned public >> policy considerations are soaked in from the environment, if in an ad >> hoc manner, which, I understand is also how you see it. > > I believe they get incorporated in an ad-hoc manner only because there is > a lack of consensus on how and where "social and public policy norms" > are documented by society. Having no clear expression of public policy > requirements and having dozens of expressions of public policy > requirements > are both equally bad, as what is needed for guidance in technical protocol > development and identifier coordination is the input of single statements > of which "social and public policy norms" are applicable. > > For example, a clear requirement exists with respect to privacy of > residential > data within Canada (due to strong data privacy statutes) but it is not > quite as > clear in the US nor in the 25 Caribbean economies in the ARIN region. > As we > have to make regional policy which works for everyone, the resulting > policy on > level of information in the public (IP) Whois directory basically must > consider > the clear policy requirements from Canada and allow for the redaction > of that > information if and when service providers assign large IP address > blocks for > individual subscribers. We have no conflicting guidance, so it was > easy to > accomodate as required. > > Having clear guidance on the social and public policy norms lets those > working > on Internet protocols and protocol identifier management actively > avoid having > conflicts with such guidance. It's still a difficult job, but it is > doable, in that the > various implications of protocol or identifier management can be held > up against > the received guidance to make sure that the final implemented > processes for > identifier management will indeed be compatible. > > When no such guidance or (almost as bad) multiple conflicting guidance > is received, > then you are left with a predominantly technical community attempting > to work on > social and public matters to fill the gap in social and public policy > norms. The job > will get done, but It's not pretty, and may not make anyone happy with > the result. > >> You do rightly stress 'ICANN's limited mandate of technical >> coordination. Increasingly, it appears to me that the concerned >> public policy issues are becoming more important and at the same time >> more complex, and the manner in which they get incorporated in the >> technical coordination function may increasingly be inadequate. > > Parminder - It is inadequate, but that's because it is the wrong tool > for the job. > > If you're seeking consensus on important and complex public policy > matters, it > would be best to drive that to resolution down to basic principles of > agreement > elsewhere before attempting to apply those principles to technical > matters such > as protocol development and identifier management. > >> The oversight issue is about developing an appropriate and adequate >> method for incorporating the relevant public policy concerns in >> technical coordination functions. > > There are two uses of the term "oversight" with respect to ICANN: > > 1) Oversight of ICANN in the overall performance of its mission > > This is how the term "oversight" is used by many in the Internet > community, and has been historically been a role held by the USG > via the JPA, and has transitioned to the reviews performed under > the Affirmation of Commitments. > > This is about reviews of structure, process, mechanisms, etc. > > 2) "Oversight" of ICANN during the policy development process > > This is a colloquial use of the term "oversight", in that it would > probably be better phrased "Monitoring and guiding ICANN when > it is performing policy development to produce politically useful > outcomes" > > The problem with such "oversight" is that it actually presumes > that ICANN is an appropriate and useful forum for working out > all of the world's previously unresolved public policy matters. > For example, if governments and civil society had a single > clear norm for what constitutes "decent speech", then its > application in a technical setting would be straightforward. > Absent a clear social & public policy norm for such content > determination, attempting to re-address the same question > within ICANN is not likely to produce any better outcome. > Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values: > > "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that > governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy > and duly taking into account governments' or public > authorities' recommendations." > > Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there > is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high degree > of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do > believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but > from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring about > consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists today. > (and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it work > on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet matters...) > >> But doing it in a manner that is not ad hoc, based on proper law and >> policy frameworks arrived at through a transparent and participatory >> process, and employing duly laid out procedures and methods. > > Full agreement on the above statement - insuring this is a major part > of the current review processes. > >> At present there is a kind of schizophrenia whereby ICANN is caught >> between its own and other actor's assessment of it being basically a >> technical coordination body with limited capacity of dealing with >> public policy considerations (which is inter alia also NCUC's stand) >> and the increasingly important and complex public policy >> considerations that are implicated in many technical coordination >> functions. How to solve this conundrum is the main issue that we are >> facing here. > > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those > documents should be formally submitted into the policy development > processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core values, > for taking them into consideration in setting policies for technical > identifier > coordination and management for the Internet. > > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think > that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses together on > these > matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger in > scope that > ICANN's mission. > > FYI, > /John > > p.s. Disclaimer: My views alone. The thoughts expressed may not be > suitable > for any specific purpose, including world domination. This > forum may not > grant time to responsible parties with opposing viewpoints. > May cause > mental staining; please try out on an unexposed section of > mind first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jul 2 04:42:58 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:42:58 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Oversight References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> <4FF13BF5.2040704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF21@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: However, it is not the idea to put some governments in charge who could be giving ad hoc directions to ICANN. We need a much more sophisticated response. Wolfgang: I agree. My proposal is - as expressed on this list in previous mails - to establish a multistakeholder expert group to investigate the option for such a "more sophisticated mechanism". Such a group could emerge from the IGF in 2013 and publish a RFC for global discussion in and outside the UN in 2014. Parminder: An internationalised oversight board takes over the oversight function currently performed by the US, but has a minimal direct inference possibility. It does review of structure, process, mechanisms etc, but also conveys the authoritative public policy principles developed at the UN CIRP to ICANN. Wolfgang: a. I do not understand what the "oversight function currently performed by the US" is in concrete terms? The JPA has ended in October 2009. Under the AoC the USG has NO formal oversight over ICANN and does NOT review ICANN. The USG plays its role via the GAC (and it does it with strong words as we have seen in the recent RedCross/IOC debate in Prague). And the review (which includes public policy issues) is decentralized (Accountability & Transparency, Security & Sability, Competition, Whois/Privacy). The Review teams are multistakeholder bodies, nomintaed by the various constituencies themselves. They include governments (Accountability &Transparency had US, EU and Chinese government). I agree that the review mechanism needs further enhancement and I would be thankful if this list (including Parminder) would come with some concrete proposals how to have a better ICANN review mechanism. b. The USG continues to authorize the publication of zone files in the root based on an established procedure between ICANN/IANA/DOC/VeriSign. The IANA contract has to be renewed soon. Since 2004 (WGIG) we have discussed "alternatives" but no workable and useful proposal has been made so far how this procedure can be handled in a better way. In the meantime we have seen in the .xxx case that the USG/NTIA has proofed to act as a "neutral stewart" of the global Internet community. It did NOT follow the strong pressure from the US Congress and the EU Commission NOT to authorize the .xxx zone file. NTIA authorized the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root even against the spirit of its own DOC statements in the GAC. This was something like a "moment of truth" and it should be noted that Strickling defended the NTIA decision against strong criticism from inside the US with the argument that in this case NTIA has just to follow the bottom up and transparent multistakeholder policy development and decision making process even if they do not like the outcome of this multistakeholder process. Otherwise, Strickling argued, they would have "lost its trust as "neutral stewart" of the Internet Community". Even if one does not like this process, it is not easy to "improve" it. A proposal I made in 2005 (in the WGIG) was to establish an external (multistakeholder) ad hoc committee which could be activated in cases when the USG/NTIA disagrees with a IANA decision to delete/add/modify zone files in the root. This would be something like a "last resort" and would probably never be activated if the USG continues to execute this technical function (inherited as a result of the historical development of the Internet) in a neutral way. c. a problem of concern remains the fact that ICANN operates under Californian Law which means that all legal issues with ICANN will be handled under Californian law. The idea to incorprate ICANN under another jurisdiction (Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands) to have an alternative option for dispute resolution was not further discussed in the last couple of years. This could be reactivated. d. a related problem is the further develoment of the GAC-Board relationship and the "enhancement" of the understanding of the "legal nature" of a GAC advice. The new GAC advice register, established recently, is an interesting move. It was also interesting to see, that the joint GAC-Board meetings get more and more attractions and are seen obviously by broad parts of the community as more important as Board and Council meetings or the public forum. The planned "ministerial/high level meeting" of the GAC in Toronto could became a watershed in ICANNs history. It would be useful if IGC/CS positions itself to raise its voice in this process and continue to enhance its own relationship with the GAC (via ALAC/NCUC). But this has nothing to do with the role of the US, although the USG is a strong member in the GAC (as the governments of Brazil, India, Kenia, Egypt, China, EU, UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Australia, Russia etc.). wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 2 08:30:49 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:00:49 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Oversight In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF21@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> <4FF0403C.5040805@itforchange.net> <4FF13BF5.2040704@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF21@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FF19479.3080801@itforchange.net> On Monday 02 July 2012 02:12 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > However, it is not the idea to put some governments in charge who could be giving ad hoc directions to ICANN. We need a much more sophisticated response. > > Wolfgang: > I agree. My proposal is - as expressed on this list in previous mails - to establish a multistakeholder expert group to investigate the option for such a "more sophisticated mechanism". There has already been an MS group - WGIG - that gave recs and enough food for thought. What did we do with it? Also, before a MS group agrees on a global IG model, isnt it better that civil society tries to develop some kind of agreement on at least the broad principles and design of 'enhanced cooperation'. > Such a group could emerge from the IGF in 2013 How do you think would this group be formed, would it self declare itself? (why didnt you accept/argue for IGF working groups when you were sitting in the WG on IGF improvements meetings? Isnt it a bit late now to say, lets have such IGF WGs, when the proposals for such IGF WGs were defeated in the WG on IGF due to lack of support.) > and publish a RFC for global discussion in and outside the UN in 2014. > I prefer that at this stage civil society first comes up with a model, and take it to a larger discussion... parminder > > > > Parminder: > > An internationalised oversight board takes over the oversight function currently performed by the US, but has a minimal direct inference possibility. It does review of structure, process, mechanisms etc, but also conveys the authoritative public policy principles developed at the UN CIRP to ICANN. > > Wolfgang: > > a. I do not understand what the "oversight function currently performed by the US" is in concrete terms? The JPA has ended in October 2009. Under the AoC the USG has NO formal oversight over ICANN and does NOT review ICANN. The USG plays its role via the GAC (and it does it with strong words as we have seen in the recent RedCross/IOC debate in Prague). And the review (which includes public policy issues) is decentralized (Accountability& Transparency, Security& Sability, Competition, Whois/Privacy). The Review teams are multistakeholder bodies, nomintaed by the various constituencies themselves. They include governments (Accountability&Transparency had US, EU and Chinese government). I agree that the review mechanism needs further enhancement and I would be thankful if this list (including Parminder) would come with some concrete proposals how to have a better ICANN review mechanism. > > b. The USG continues to authorize the publication of zone files in the root based on an established procedure between ICANN/IANA/DOC/VeriSign. The IANA contract has to be renewed soon. Since 2004 (WGIG) we have discussed "alternatives" but no workable and useful proposal has been made so far how this procedure can be handled in a better way. In the meantime we have seen in the .xxx case that the USG/NTIA has proofed to act as a "neutral stewart" of the global Internet community. It did NOT follow the strong pressure from the US Congress and the EU Commission NOT to authorize the .xxx zone file. NTIA authorized the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root even against the spirit of its own DOC statements in the GAC. This was something like a "moment of truth" and it should be noted that Strickling defended the NTIA decision against strong criticism from inside the US with the argument that in this case NTIA has just to follow the bottom up and transparent multistakeholder policy development and decision making process even if they do not like the outcome of this multistakeholder process. Otherwise, Strickling argued, they would have "lost its trust as "neutral stewart" of the Internet Community". Even if one does not like this process, it is not easy to "improve" it. A proposal I made in 2005 (in the WGIG) was to establish an external (multistakeholder) ad hoc committee which could be activated in cases when the USG/NTIA disagrees with a IANA decision to delete/add/modify zone files in the root. This would be something like a "last resort" and would probably never be activated if the USG continues to execute this technical function (inherited as a result of the historical development of the Internet) in a neutral way. > > c. a problem of concern remains the fact that ICANN operates under Californian Law which means that all legal issues with ICANN will be handled under Californian law. The idea to incorprate ICANN under another jurisdiction (Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands) to have an alternative option for dispute resolution was not further discussed in the last couple of years. This could be reactivated. > > d. a related problem is the further develoment of the GAC-Board relationship and the "enhancement" of the understanding of the "legal nature" of a GAC advice. The new GAC advice register, established recently, is an interesting move. It was also interesting to see, that the joint GAC-Board meetings get more and more attractions and are seen obviously by broad parts of the community as more important as Board and Council meetings or the public forum. The planned "ministerial/high level meeting" of the GAC in Toronto could became a watershed in ICANNs history. It would be useful if IGC/CS positions itself to raise its voice in this process and continue to enhance its own relationship with the GAC (via ALAC/NCUC). But this has nothing to do with the role of the US, although the USG is a strong member in the GAC (as the governments of Brazil, India, Kenia, Egypt, China, EU, UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Australia, Russia etc.). > > wolfgang > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Jul 2 10:10:18 2012 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:10:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! In-Reply-To: <4FF02C64.70309@gih.com> References: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> <4FF02C64.70309@gih.com> Message-ID: <201207021410.q62EAUf7016535@es.funredes.org> I remember having tried stubbornly to convince Intelmatique executives (Intelmatique was the international arm of French Videotex with ambition to export the system abroad) between1998 and 1990, when Internet users population was growing from less than 1 million to more than 2 million users while Minitel figures went from 6 to 12 millions to proceed to the big switch from Minitel to Internet and take the jackpot, business wise... before the number of Internet users would cross back the number of Minitel users (which did happened around 1993). And I sure was not the only one to try! The short term benefits of 3615 (which were incredible for both the carrier and the service providers due to the shaprness of the growth) blinding the long term perspective was my sad diagnostic. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Mon Jul 2 12:11:49 2012 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:11:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Adieu Minitel, Adieu! In-Reply-To: <6A5ACC8F-D786-4869-8785-EEDDDDF66588@christopherwilkinson. eu> References: <3F3C6AE6E66F47DBB77B6F8B474550F9@UserVAIO> <4FF02C64.70309@gih.com> <201207021410.q62EAUf7016535@es.funredes.org> <6A5ACC8F-D786-4869-8785-EEDDDDF66588@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <201207021612.q62GBxNl025786@es.funredes.org> At 12:03 02/07/2012, CW Mail wrote: >You mean 1988 and 1990. >Yes? Yes of course ;-) Sorry for the typing mistake and thanks for detecting it and allowing me to correct. >On 02 Jul 2012, at 16:10, Daniel Pimienta wrote (CORRECTED): > >>I remember having tried stubbornly to convince Intelmatique >>executives (Intelmatique was the international arm of French >>Videotex with ambition to export the system abroad) between1988 and >>1990, when Internet users population was growing from less than 1 >>million to more than 2 million users while Minitel figures went from >>6 to 12 millions to proceed to the big switch from Minitel to >>Internet and take the jackpot, business wise... before the number of >>Internet users would cross back the number of Minitel users (which >>did happened around 1993). >> >>And I sure was not the only one to try! >> >>The short term benefits of 3615 (which were incredible for both the >>carrier and the service providers due to the shaprness of the >>growth) blinding the long term perspective was my sad diagnostic. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jul 2 20:15:43 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:15:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> Hi McTIm & John, Yes, I read the NRO-ICANN MouU when it was issued +or- eight years ago -- could not find any update of it, except an internal MoU AfriNIC-NRO to account for the inclusion of the latest RIR. If you look at the IANA contract (the statement of work), and the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), both correctly consider ICANN as the *only* official counterpart regarding governance of the logical infra. There is no mention of the derived structures. It is relevant to recall the footnote to the AoC: "For the purposes of this Affirmation the Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS) is defined as: domain names; Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers; protocol port and parameter numbers. ICANN coordinates these identifiers at the overall level, consistent with its mission." The ARIN response to the NTIA RFC (2011) describes suggestions of NRO members (strangely, not NRO itself - perhaps because it is not incorporated?) becoming official parts in any new official arrangement with NTIA (and even the IETF is bundled in the suggestion), but the fact is that this has not yet happened -- and in my view would amount to an effective decentralization of the role currently played exclusively by ICANN, either as contractor regarding the USG or an international governance structure. But, I repeat, this has not yet happened. So, in summary: ICANN is the body to which direct my question which has motivated this thread. Put in another way: ICANN is the body responsible for responding to the concerns expressed by the community regarding LEAs' intrusion into IPv6 deployment. What ICANN does with it (like just redirect it to another structure under its purview, plays ostrich or provides a meaningful response to the community and LEAs) is another issue, of course. Just to be sure, "deployment" is also part of the ICANN mandate. Witness the WHOIS protracted process, which is essentially on deploying, retaining and making available DNS information. fraternal regards --c.a. On 07/01/2012 02:40 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Grande McTim, are you both referring to the NRO-ICANN MoU? Just to make >> sure we are on the same page. > > > yes, that is the one I meant! > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 21:08:59 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:08:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi McTIm & John, > > Yes, I read the NRO-ICANN MouU when it was issued +or- eight years ago > -- could not find any update of it, except an internal MoU AfriNIC-NRO > to account for the inclusion of the latest RIR. > > If you look at the IANA contract (the statement of work), and the > Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), both correctly consider ICANN as the > *only* official counterpart regarding governance of the logical infra. The docs might, but the FBI, IRS, RCMP, et.al., send folk to ARIN meetings. > There is no mention of the derived structures. It is relevant to recall > the footnote to the AoC: "For the purposes of this Affirmation the > Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS) is defined as: domain > names; Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers; > protocol port and parameter numbers. ICANN coordinates these identifiers > at the overall level, consistent with its mission." yes at the global level, in other words the IANA is the "root" of IP address distribution. > > The ARIN response to the NTIA RFC (2011) describes suggestions of NRO > members (strangely, not NRO itself - perhaps because it is not > incorporated?) becoming official parts in any new official arrangement > with NTIA (and even the IETF is bundled in the suggestion), but the fact > is that this has not yet happened -- and in my view would amount to an > effective decentralization of the role currently played exclusively by > ICANN, either as contractor regarding the USG or an international > governance structure. But, I repeat, this has not yet happened. > > So, in summary: ICANN is the body to which direct my question which has > motivated this thread. Put in another way: ICANN is the body responsible > for responding to the concerns expressed by the community regarding > LEAs' intrusion into IPv6 deployment. Unless there is a global policy to be considered, I would suggest ICANN is out of the picture. In practice, the RIR fora are the place where these policies will be made (or not made). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 21:12:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:12:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/press-r?= =?US-ASCII?Q?elease/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-k?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ey-internet-functions-icann?= Message-ID: I think the url speaks for itself -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 3 00:26:13 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:26:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: First rule of comedy... timing. Congratulations Fadi Chehadé :-) Adam On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM, McTim wrote: > I think the url speaks for itself > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 00:57:25 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:57:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom Message-ID: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. It's not very good. For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital rights group has decided not to sign on. Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd include. All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign onto it? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 01:44:55 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:44:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC Message-ID: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> Following on from the post about the Declaration of Internet Freedom, this had me thinking that at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a sub-standard one), which is what the IGC has not done despite talking about doing it since last IGF. So, I should give credit where credit is due. But we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed and demographically narrow. With all our criticisms about the IGF failing to deliver outputs, the IGC should practice what it preaches, and produce more concrete results of its own. (This is no criticism of Izumi or Sala, who would emphasise that the IGC is member-led rather than coordinator-led.) So it seems to me that there are at least two main areas in which we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to actually get around to doing so. These are: 1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this; and 2. the development of one or two (for CIRs and non-CIR public policy issues) tangible models for enhanced cooperation or at least a working group to develop such. In respect of the first of these, no progress that I know of has been made since last IGF, and meanwhile the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles (I know at least of an Asia-Pacific document) and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year. In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop). Can those with ownership of these suggestions please give us an update as to whether there is any progress to report? If not, what is lacking (funding, support, time?), and how could others help? Would the formation of small working groups with mailing lists on the IGC server assist to convert these ideas into action? Let's not let another IGF go by without something to show for both of these important areas for action. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Tue Jul 3 02:21:29 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:21:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I wonder whether it makes sense to elaborate a new declaration of principles after the good work which has been done in the DC IRP on Internet and Human Rights and the Council of Europe with the help of Wolfgang and others on Internet Governance principles, see http://www.irpcharter.org/images/IRPflyer.pdf and https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 Rather this material should be more actively used. Wolfgang Benedek Von: Jeremy Malcolm > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Jeremy Malcolm > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC Following on from the post about the Declaration of Internet Freedom, this had me thinking that at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a sub-standard one), which is what the IGC has not done despite talking about doing it since last IGF. So, I should give credit where credit is due. But we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed and demographically narrow. With all our criticisms about the IGF failing to deliver outputs, the IGC should practice what it preaches, and produce more concrete results of its own. (This is no criticism of Izumi or Sala, who would emphasise that the IGC is member-led rather than coordinator-led.) So it seems to me that there are at least two main areas in which we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to actually get around to doing so. These are: 1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this; and 2. the development of one or two (for CIRs and non-CIR public policy issues) tangible models for enhanced cooperation or at least a working group to develop such. In respect of the first of these, no progress that I know of has been made since last IGF, and meanwhile the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles (I know at least of an Asia-Pacific document) and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year. In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop). Can those with ownership of these suggestions please give us an update as to whether there is any progress to report? If not, what is lacking (funding, support, time?), and how could others help? Would the formation of small working groups with mailing lists on the IGC server assist to convert these ideas into action? Let's not let another IGF go by without something to show for both of these important areas for action. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Jul 3 03:08:20 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:08:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4834443E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Wolfgang, not that the WK/DC IRP/CoE declaration is without problems, right? Like, it would insert Internet governance straight into discussions on "right to life" with its numerous controversial connotations, and leaves unanswered a key question: Can you codify "permanent beta"? The more lots of us work on Internet principles, the more it becomes clear to me that we can only address... Internet principles. Human rights are still Layer 8. We must design, plan, build and operate the Internet respecting and even enhancing human rights as much as we can, but must continue to understand that the tools we use for human conduct - laws, regulations, norms, etiquette, what have you: governance - still has to be addressed in layers above the operation of the net. The layer violations some of the declarations imply cannot be sustained. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Enviado el: martes, 03 de julio de 2012 01:21 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Asunto: Re: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC I wonder whether it makes sense to elaborate a new declaration of principles after the good work which has been done in the DC IRP on Internet and Human Rights and the Council of Europe with the help of Wolfgang and others on Internet Governance principles, see http://www.irpcharter.org/images/IRPflyer.pdf and https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 Rather this material should be more actively used. Wolfgang Benedek Von: Jeremy Malcolm > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Jeremy Malcolm > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Betreff: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC Following on from the post about the Declaration of Internet Freedom, this had me thinking that at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a sub-standard one), which is what the IGC has not done despite talking about doing it since last IGF. So, I should give credit where credit is due. But we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed and demographically narrow. With all our criticisms about the IGF failing to deliver outputs, the IGC should practice what it preaches, and produce more concrete results of its own. (This is no criticism of Izumi or Sala, who would emphasise that the IGC is member-led rather than coordinator-led.) So it seems to me that there are at least two main areas in which we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to actually get around to doing so. These are: 1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this; and 2. the development of one or two (for CIRs and non-CIR public policy issues) tangible models for enhanced cooperation or at least a working group to develop such. In respect of the first of these, no progress that I know of has been made since last IGF, and meanwhile the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles (I know at least of an Asia-Pacific document) and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year. In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop). Can those with ownership of these suggestions please give us an update as to whether there is any progress to report? If not, what is lacking (funding, support, time?), and how could others help? Would the formation of small working groups with mailing lists on the IGC server assist to convert these ideas into action? Let's not let another IGF go by without something to show for both of these important areas for action. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 03:30:22 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:30:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C50E2E6-61CB-4006-AD05-C31C2DC8BDFC@gmail.com> Black or white Comedy ;) Foo? On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:26 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > First rule of comedy... timing. > > Congratulations Fadi Chehadé :-) > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM, McTim wrote: >> I think the url speaks for itself >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 03:31:24 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:31:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF29FCC.4060008@ciroap.org> On 03/07/12 14:21, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > I wonder whether it makes sense to elaborate a new declaration of > principles after the good work which has been done in the DC IRP on > Internet and Human Rights and the Council of Europe with the help of > Wolfgang and others on Internet Governance principles, see > http://www.irpcharter.org/images/IRPflyer.pdf and https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773 > Rather this material should be more actively used. Wolfgang K may recall why this approach wasn't originally taken, I think it may have been because a human rights oriented document was thought harder to get agreement around from the broadest possible range of signatories. Moreover, there is no obvious way to sign on to the IRP charter (though this could easily be fixed). -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jul 3 04:44:04 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:44:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Jeremy for pushing this forward, you are right, time is ripe to bring now the many "small rivers" which emerged from the many "hot and cold springs" in the last two years into something like a "mainstream" which becomes politically relevant. I fully support a pre-event (The "Quo Vadis" Session) for Baku. I further support the idea, that the IGC produces an own statement (one or two position papers) on principles and EC. This could be done online with a dateline October 15, 2012 and could be used as background material for the "Quo Vadis" session. Additionally there should be a background paper which just describes briefly all the various initiatives by governmental (IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE etc.) and non-governmental (DC IRP, Brazil, APC, ICC etc.) bodies (something like a "mapping of the scene") so that we have a full overview what has been achieved so far and where we have the gaps. Wolfgang Benedek is right that each new step should be build on the already existing documents. There is no need for "new water". However we have to recognize that the documents which have emerged in the last couple of years are very often neither universal nor multistakholder. IBSA and Shanghai puts one stakeholder (governments) in the drivers seat. OECD and CoE support multistakehoderism, but are not universal and do have also only governments as signatories. APC and ICC (and IGC) represents only one stakeholder group. As far as I can see only the DC IRP (internationally) and Brazil (nationally) are truly multistakeholder. We have now to go beyond that, that is to include ALL stakeholders and ALL regions on a higher level. My understanding is that the "TakingStock" Plenary at the end of Baku will discuss principles and frameworks, which probably include also EC. Our "Quo Vadis" session should produce a "roadmap" as a concrete proposal for this session coming from the floor to stimulate an open bottom up and transparent process which could lead to a more structured universal and multistakeholder process towards IGF 2013 (eventually via a new DC on Internet Governance Principles and Frameworks). Additionally we have also to invest a little bit more thinking into the way how we deal with the various Internet layers in a different way. The previous initiatives mix political and technical guidelines which is partly okay but which needs a second check to make sure that political guidelines are compatible with technical architecture principles. Alejandro mentioned human rights as an issue. On the one hand the lower level auf the Internet is "neutral". On the other hand we see now with the Chinese proposal in the IETF on Autonomous Roots that also here we can have serious implications. I think that the IGC could get some credit for pushing a discussion on "human rights by design" into Internet protocols and standards. Wolfgang Von: Jeremy Malcolm Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Betreff: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC Following on from the post about the Declaration of Internet Freedom, this had me thinking that at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a sub-standard one), which is what the IGC has not done despite talking about doing it since last IGF. So, I should give credit where credit is due. But we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed and demographically narrow. With all our criticisms about the IGF failing to deliver outputs, the IGC should practice what it preaches, and produce more concrete results of its own. (This is no criticism of Izumi or Sala, who would emphasise that the IGC is member-led rather than coordinator-led.) So it seems to me that there are at least two main areas in which we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to actually get around to doing so. These are: 1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this; and 2. the development of one or two (for CIRs and non-CIR public policy issues) tangible models for enhanced cooperation or at least a working group to develop such. In respect of the first of these, no progress that I know of has been made since last IGF, and meanwhile the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles (I know at least of an Asia-Pacific document) and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year. In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop). Can those with ownership of these suggestions please give us an update as to whether there is any progress to report? If not, what is lacking (funding, support, time?), and how could others help? Would the formation of small working groups with mailing lists on the IGC server assist to convert these ideas into action? Let's not let another IGF go by without something to show for both of these important areas for action. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 05:00:31 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 17:00:31 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FF2B4AF.6000100@ciroap.org> On 03/07/12 16:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > you are right, time is ripe to bring now the many "small rivers" which emerged from the many "hot and cold springs" in the last two years into something like a "mainstream" which becomes politically relevant. I fully support a pre-event (The "Quo Vadis" Session) for Baku. I further support the idea, that the IGC produces an own statement (one or two position papers) on principles and EC. This could be done online with a dateline October 15, 2012 and could be used as background material for the "Quo Vadis" session. Additionally there should be a background paper which just describes briefly all the various initiatives by governmental (IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE etc.) and non-governmental (DC IRP, Brazil, APC, ICC etc.) bodies (something like a "mapping of the scene") so that we have a full overview what has been achieved so far and where we have the gaps. Great! An easy way for people to contribute would be to send links to the other principles initiatives to me or to the list, and I'll add them to our website - have a look at http://www.igcaucus.org/links for a start I've made already. Also good news that we are still intending to start something concrete on EC in Baku, though I hope for more than just a position paper. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 3 05:27:32 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:27:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wrong again. Rod Beckstrom signed, his last act while ICANN CEO. Oh well. Adam On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > First rule of comedy... timing. > > Congratulations Fadi Chehadé :-) > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:12 AM, McTim wrote: >> I think the url speaks for itself >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jul 3 07:09:38 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:09:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FF2D2F2.40907@cafonso.ca> Yes, and I would really like to read the "statement of work" of the new contract. --c.a. On 07/02/2012 10:12 PM, McTim wrote: > I think the url speaks for itself > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 07:19:19 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:19:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> Hi McTim, On 07/02/2012 10:08 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hi McTIm & John, >> >> Yes, I read the NRO-ICANN MouU when it was issued +or- eight years ago >> -- could not find any update of it, except an internal MoU AfriNIC-NRO >> to account for the inclusion of the latest RIR. >> >> If you look at the IANA contract (the statement of work), and the >> Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), both correctly consider ICANN as the >> *only* official counterpart regarding governance of the logical infra. > > The docs might, but the FBI, IRS, RCMP, et.al., send folk to ARIN meetings. Practices and wishes are one thing, institutional accountability is another. And I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn now) relies on law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to determine what LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies. > > >> There is no mention of the derived structures. It is relevant to recall >> the footnote to the AoC: "For the purposes of this Affirmation the >> Internet's domain name and addressing system (DNS) is defined as: domain >> names; Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers; >> protocol port and parameter numbers. ICANN coordinates these identifiers >> at the overall level, consistent with its mission." > > yes at the global level, in other words the IANA is the "root" of IP > address distribution. Precisely, this is at global level, just as the Internet. > >> >> The ARIN response to the NTIA RFC (2011) describes suggestions of NRO >> members (strangely, not NRO itself - perhaps because it is not >> incorporated?) becoming official parts in any new official arrangement >> with NTIA (and even the IETF is bundled in the suggestion), but the fact >> is that this has not yet happened -- and in my view would amount to an >> effective decentralization of the role currently played exclusively by >> ICANN, either as contractor regarding the USG or an international >> governance structure. But, I repeat, this has not yet happened. >> >> So, in summary: ICANN is the body to which direct my question which has >> motivated this thread. Put in another way: ICANN is the body responsible >> for responding to the concerns expressed by the community regarding >> LEAs' intrusion into IPv6 deployment. > > > Unless there is a global policy to be considered, I would suggest > ICANN is out of the picture. This is a global policy issue -- it might affect deployment of IPv6, which is not restricted to a country border, particularly if it happens in the main Internet hub, the USA. > > In practice, the RIR fora are the place where these policies will be > made (or not made). But the RIRs are only accountable to their binding contracts with IP holders, not to global names and numbers policy. The RIRs (I assume this means NRO) are part of the building of a global addressing policy (just as GNSO is regarding generic names), but institutional accountability on a global level remains with Icann. BTW, I wonder if there is any significant change related to institutional accountability in the "statement of work" of the neww IANA contract? frt rgds --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jul 3 07:30:46 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:30:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: <4FF2D2F2.40907@cafonso.ca> References: <4FF2D2F2.40907@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, and I would really like to read the "statement of work" of the new > contract. I'd expect it to appear at some some point on NTIA or ICANN's website, but given that the Further Notice of Inquiry included a proposed statement of work which parties used to respond originally [1], it is unlikely to be much different from that version. [1] FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. After July 1, a person may not force this email upon another for purposes of enlarging their understanding of issues, nor hire another to so. Also, consumption of minds that may have been enlarged in this manner is prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 07:44:47 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:44:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internationalization of IANA oversight In-Reply-To: <1442DEC7-963E-46F3-9007-EFD9CDF44AB7@corp.arin.net> References: <1442DEC7-963E-46F3-9007-EFD9CDF44AB7@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks John, On a personal note, this issue requires to first formulate a common objective for all actors. I believe such an objective is : "*to ensure the integrity of the root zone file by guaranteeing that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root zone file*". This is a common concern and interest for all actors: governments, businesses, civil society actors and DNS operators. I have had the opportunity during the last few years to test this formulation with a broad range of players and it seems to be accepted by all, which could be a good starting point. The bottom line is no evolution will be possible without ensuring that the US has as much certainty as it has today that no one will be able to tamper with the RZF, while offering all other actors, including other governments, the same certainty. Various avenues can be explored to ensure such an outcome. The IANA contract has just been renewed with ICANN for a period of three years (up to october 2015) with two possible extensions of one year. The increased transparency in the IANA process that it will establish will be part of the progress towards the objective. Further discussions will have to take place to identify whatever evolution could be envisaged. An important topic indeed. Best Bertrand On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > But has ICANN, ISOC, RIRs, IANA or any other relevant body ever formally > > raised change in this particular area (root zone authorisation) with > DOC, in > > the formal way in which change was suggested on the JPA agreement which > > eventually led to the AOC? > > Yes, as formal comments into NTIA's IANA Functions contract solicitation: > > < > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notices/2011/request-comments-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-functions > > > > ARIN - > "It is no surprise that NTIA would undertake a comprehensive review of the > IANA > functions, given the IANA functions are an essential piece of the overall > foundation of the Internet. No one would disagree that the Internet has > grown > and evolved significantly since the first IANA functions contract in 2000. > With this > success comes a more diverse global community of stakeholders with new > concerns and expectations. In order to continue to build confidence in the > Internet, it is critical that the IANA functions be managed in a way that > is open, > transparent and globally accountable. This comprehensive review is just > one > step in the eventual internationalization of oversight of the IANA > functions." > > NRO - > "In a recent letter to ICANN, the NRO introduced a proposal for moving > forward in the relationship between ICANN and the US Government: “The NRO > suggests that ICANN, through these coming negotiations, should advocate for > a staged reduction of the level of DoC’s oversight to IANA. This process > could possibly involve a transition from a contract to a cooperative > agreement, and ultimately arrival at a non-binding arrangement, such as an > affirmation of commitments (mirroring, of course, the successful > progression in the relationship between ICANN itself and the US > government).” > > ISOC - > "For the Internet Society, it remains important for the IANA functions to > continue to be a part of the Internet ecosystem, and that the IANA > functions operator is permitted to continue its evolution toward becoming > an internationally-accepted, private sector (i.e., multistakeholder) > entity. This approach needs to be maintained and enhanced, as it is best > suited to serving the global public interest." > > ICANN - > "ICANN urges the DOC to evolve the IANA functions framework following the > model set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments. By incorporating the > principles of transparency and global accountability, and providing a clear > path toward transitioning the IANA functions to the private sector, the DOC > can finally complete the objective it set forth in the White Paper over a > decade ago: to allow for global participation in the management of Internet > names and addresses." > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 02:42:04 2012 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:42:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] I need your help.....Koven Ronald In-Reply-To: <201207031225.q63CPJZh023650@imr-da03.mx.aol.com> References: <201207031225.q63CPJZh023650@imr-da03.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: Ronald, Your mailbox has been hacked. This is a well known scheme to defraud people. If anyone on this list knows how to contact Ronald, please do so off net and let him know what is going on. George Sadowsky >Hello, > > I'm writing this with tears, It is not my intension writing you >but I have to, my family and I came down to Madrid, Spain for a >short vacation and really it was unannounced but unfortunately, we >were robbed last night on our way back to the hotel where we lodged >and all our cash, credit cards and cell phones were stolen. I >sustain some bruises on my left arm and really in pains here. We've >reported the incident to the embassy and the Police but they're not >helping issues at all.. Our return flight back home leaves in few >hours from now but we're having problems settling the hotel bills >and the hotel manager won't let us leave until we settle the >bills....am really freaked out at the moment. > >I really need your help, Please I need you to loan me some money, I >promise to refund you immediately i get back home. All i need is >$1,350...Please i cant afford to miss my return flight back home, >Please let me know if you can help me with the money. > > >Koven Ronald > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 08:44:22 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:44:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] I need your help.....Koven Ronald In-Reply-To: References: <201207031225.q63CPJZh023650@imr-da03.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: I just tried but the message bounced back. I wonder why the story always seems to be about being stranded in Spain? :-) Deirdre On 3 July 2012 02:42, George Sadowsky wrote: > Ronald, > > Your mailbox has been hacked. This is a well known scheme to defraud > people. > > If anyone on this list knows how to contact Ronald, please do so off net > and let him know what is going on. > > George Sadowsky > > > Hello, >> >> I'm writing this with tears, It is not my intension writing you but I >> have to, my family and I came down to Madrid, Spain for a short vacation >> and really it was unannounced but unfortunately, we were robbed last night >> on our way back to the hotel where we lodged and all our cash, credit cards >> and cell phones were stolen. I sustain some bruises on my left arm and >> really in pains here. We've reported the incident to the embassy and the >> Police but they're not helping issues at all.. Our return flight back home >> leaves in few hours from now but we're having problems settling the hotel >> bills and the hotel manager won't let us leave until we settle the >> bills....am really freaked out at the moment. >> >> I really need your help, Please I need you to loan me some money, I >> promise to refund you immediately i get back home. All i need is >> $1,350...Please i cant afford to miss my return flight back home, Please >> let me know if you can help me with the money. >> >> >> Koven Ronald >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Tue Jul 3 08:46:46 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:46:46 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of 2010 by a group of NGOs and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of 2012 by Praxis think tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit the effects of such efforts. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juli 2012 06:57 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. It's not very good. For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital rights group has decided not to sign on. Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd include. All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign onto it? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Jul 3 08:54:28 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:54:28 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> To avoid duplication or working in parallel I propose to organize the Quo Vadis workshop as a joint event IGC & DC. w ________________________________ Von: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] Gesendet: Di 03.07.2012 14:46 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Betreff: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of 2010 by a group of NGOs and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of 2012 by Praxis think tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit the effects of such efforts. Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juli 2012 06:57 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. It's not very good. For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital rights group has decided not to sign on. Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd include. All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign onto it? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jul 3 09:49:53 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:49:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FE1653B.7080705@itforchange.net> References: <4E3DE84E-EC35-405B-905C-5E9542B076A@acm.org> <4FC37B66.4060403@apc.org> <4FC381CA.9000803@apc.org> <28BE3422-B8D4-4C46-8310-1AF819281B8F@ella.com> <4FC395E5.90603@apc.org> <60B40984-73B9-4788-B616-EEB5E144CED5@ella.com> <463E2160-45C0-42EE-AE0F-810B41F955F1@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8B98@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FC4EDF9.1010108@apc.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E8CC3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FC4FE4A.6040000@apc.org> <4FC5F28B.6080505@itforchange.net> <20120530152644.04F911F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120601062832.C53DB1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <4FC87789.5060602@itforchange. net> <20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE1653B.7080705@it forchange.net> Message-ID: <6AFE5EB5-8A5E-4E59-9C29-94532908145D@acm.org> Hi, Thanks for bringing this back up. Some comment inset. On 20 Jun 2012, at 01:52, parminder wrote: > Norbert > > A relatively old email that I should have responded to, but was awaiting responses to your proposal for "EC Task Force" from others. > > My comments are inline. > > On Friday 01 June 2012 02:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Both your initial framing of questions and the way to go forward, and >>> the new responses to Marilia's email, are very valid, and thought >>> provoking. Our proposal to look at the institutional mapping and the way >>> forward separately for CIT/ tech standards on one side and >>> social-eco-cultural policy issues on the other (not that the division is >>> absolutely neat) is that there are different actors involved and actors >>> have different roles, on the two sides. >>> >>> >> Ok, so if this description is accurate, and the way forward is looked >> at separately for the two areas, I would expect that that will lead to >> Enhanced Cooperation going forward separately, or not, in each of the >> two areas. >> >> > > The reason for such separation is that the needs, context of ecology of technical decision making can be very different from that for larger political decision-making. 'Technical' refers to areas where there is relatively not much difference and possible conflict of interests, and thus the accent is on finding the best 'solution' which more or less should be equally good for all. I think this is an essentially a false premise. The intricate interconnection of science/technology with policy/governance has been shown time and time again. Stating the technology can be discussed as a separate thing is really not a tenable hypothesis. And it certainly cannot be the basis for a theory of a governance system. Technology does not exist without a social context. Governance of technological systems must occur within a social context. i.e. a political context. > Processes like consensus building, letting all participate equally, without going into questions of legitimacy and representativity, emphasis on competence, knowledge of the subject matter, giving directions without legal/ binding force, and so on, work well, and are most appropriate for, technical decision making. I see no basis for this argument. technical debate is political debate just about the specific subject of tech and thus demands understanding of tech. but all political discusourse is discourse about some specific subject requiring knowledge of the subject; e.g economics, welfare of the people etc. > 'Political' refers to areas where there is a greater occurrence of clearly differential interests, contexts and situations ,and so on, of the affected parties. Same proceses are at work in technological processes. You should try it sometime. I know you think you understand what is going in theory, but a little participation might show you different it is in practice. > While the distinction between technical and political cannot be an absolute binary, there is enough meaning and substance to these concepts that by and large decision making structures in these two realms are mostly structured in different ways. There are of course always ways to connect these structures as well (quite in keeping with your tripartite framing towards the end of your email). I do not see it and have never seen an argument that made sense for the separation of the issue of technology and policy in the Internet cannot be dirempted this way. And while different subject area might require a different sort of multistakeholder conversation, I do not see a substantive difference. > >> My vision for Enhanced Cooperation is to put both areas together, >> jointly, under a single institutional "Enhanced Cooperation Task >> Force" framework, modeled to some extent on the IETF, and a single set >> of process principles I think this is a reasonable approach worth talking about >> > > The problem with your 'solution' is that you want to put such processes that have worked well for technical decision-making in service of both the tech and political realms of IG. I am not sure this will work. For me such conflation, in many actors mind, may be 'the original problem'. And pursuant to identification of this 'problem' did i suggest looking at two different, parallel, but at some point connected, processes to look respectively into the technical side and political (or larger public issues) side of enhanced cooperation. That is an essential problem, what for you is a problematic conflation is for others, like me, the appropriate and essential structure. > >> that are designed to operate as closely as >> possible to what Daniel Kalchev calls "the 'common sense' law that >> every human being on this planet knows unconditionally". >> > > "Common sense" is easier spoken of then being able to arrive at what is common sense in any particular case. This is especially so, and this goes to my point of separating technical and political sides of the problem, when there are differential and perhaps conflicting interests, contexts etc among the involved parties. Common sense is often just another name for 'hegemony' in the Gramscian sense. In this I almost agree with you Parminder. Common sense is many things to many different people and as such mean very little more than "this seem seems reasonable to me.". To you its Gramsci hegemony, to me it is the grab bag of un-reflective thought especially by those with no real life experience in the subject matter. > > >> The output >> of this "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" would be Request For Action >> (RFA) documents, which analogously to RFCs would not have direct >> legal force, >> > This is more or less exactly what was meant by trying to give greater output and recommendatory orientation to the multistakeholder IGF, an effort that failed because, inter alia, the technical community, did not agree with it. Maybe at this point they are ready to consider doing so. the IGF of 2012 is not Nitin's IGF of 2006 > Can you tell me how what you are suggesting now is different from the proposal to give IGF power or role to give clear recs, and these be authoritatively conveyed to different IG bodies, and for this purpose also to strengthen the MAG, and make it internally differentiated, policy theme wise, into working groups. One of such working groups could have been a 'working group on the enhanced cooperation issue', and I can see us arrive at almost exactly the same arrangement as you suggest. Is it not so? Only difference perhaps is, that the IGF proposal is made in general political and participation terms that have been used historically and are understood by 'normal people', and even more importantly, that proposal is carefully placed in a clear institutional context, which has been carefuly nurtured for the purpose, and has the various needed historical and institutional continutities. Absent these, a proposal like yours for a 'EC task force' based on nothing but evocation of 'common sense' may look very good on paper, but in any attempt to operationalise it may immidiately get captured by powerful actors. While I do not agree with common sense, I do beleive in an emergent sense that comes from multistakeholder processes. And whether it is a task force or some other sort of multistakeholder modeled work on EC. > > Therefore, before one accepts this new proposal, those who so solidly stood in the way of giving bigger and better role to the IGF for a similar purpose would need to explain themselves. Otherwise, I cant see why this new proposal would has a better chance. As I mentioned when we talked in person. In the IGF when it was just starting, there was no ability to move into EC. And with the ambiguities in the text and the GA thwarting the original meaning, it was impossible to move forward. Things have changed, and this may make all the difference. Perhaps you have given up on the IGF, just when its time to do something has become possible. The IGF is stronger now, and has moved beyond its UN initiation. It has a structure of national and regionals IGFs that make it self sustaining. > >> but they'd be informative and persuasive and maybe >> eventually any government that doesn't follow the recommendations of >> the RFAs without giving really good reasons for choosing differently >> will get voted out of office quickly. >> >> So if I agree to a bipartition framing, I fear that I might thereby >> kill my vision, and I don't want to do that. >> >> > > I do appreciate your commitment, and despite my comments above, would want you to carry forward your vision. > > parminder >> But I'd agree to a tripartition framing along the lines of >> >> (a) What are the current institutions in the "CIR + tech standards" >> area, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be established >> that addresses this area specifically? >> >> (b) What are the current institutions in the "social-eco-cultural policy" >> area, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be established >> that addresses this area specifically? >> >> (c) What are the concerns and challenges which are common to both of >> these areas, and how might an Enhanced Cooperation process be >> established that addresses both of these areas jointly? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lorna.tingu at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 3 10:27:06 2012 From: lorna.tingu at yahoo.co.uk (Lorna simiyu) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:27:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] List of nominees for the Appeals Team - please confirm In-Reply-To: <4FEE1371.5080108@communisphere.com> References: <4FEE1371.5080108@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <1341325626.50669.YahooMailNeo@web132106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Congratulations to the nominees for the Appeals Team.   I happy for the team and I am confident they will perform to their expectations as the team is highly qualified.  Best regards. Lorna T.M. Simiyu ________________________________ From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus Cc: Asif Kabani ; Hakikur Rahman ; Naveed haq ; Shahid Akbar ; Wilson Abigaba Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012, 23:43 Subject: [governance] List of nominees for the Appeals Team - please confirm Fellow Member of the IGC, I am delighted to report that 10 highly qualified members have been nominated to serve on the Appeals Team, as follows: 1. Ginger Paque   2. Gurumurthy Kasinathan 3. Ian Peter 4. Imran Ahmed Shah 5. Judy Okite 6. Michael Gurstein 7. Raquel Gatto 8. Roland Perry 9. Shaila Rao Mistry  10. Vincent Solomon Aliama *** If we've missed anyone, please inform us ASAP. *** While some of the above volunteered, some were nominated by others. Our next step will be to confirm that the nominee list are willing and able to serve. Soon thereafter the nominating committee will begin its evaluation process. We hope to make a decision mid-July. Sincerely, > >Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 10:55:36 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:55:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internationalization of IANA oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1442DEC7-963E-46F3-9007-EFD9CDF44AB7@corp.arin.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1060EF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I've shut up for a while on the list as others carry the conversation forward, but want to give Bertrand a +1 for: "to ensure the integrity of the root zone file by guaranteeing that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root zone file" as one worthy target of....IGF/ECTF. If an alternate mechanism, or should I say administrative procedure, for ensuring that can be defined, or at least proposed, by say 2015, as Bertrand suggests, then yeah maybe Ian's wish of getting NTIA out of the engine room without other governments rushing in, can eventually be achieved. Just one part of the puzzle; but the root of all Internet governance puzzles is a key one to solve. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Cc: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Internationalization of IANA oversight Thanks John, On a personal note, this issue requires to first formulate a common objective for all actors. I believe such an objective is : "to ensure the integrity of the root zone file by guaranteeing that no one, voluntarily or involuntarily, can tamper with the root zone file". This is a common concern and interest for all actors: governments, businesses, civil society actors and DNS operators. I have had the opportunity during the last few years to test this formulation with a broad range of players and it seems to be accepted by all, which could be a good starting point. The bottom line is no evolution will be possible without ensuring that the US has as much certainty as it has today that no one will be able to tamper with the RZF, while offering all other actors, including other governments, the same certainty. Various avenues can be explored to ensure such an outcome. The IANA contract has just been renewed with ICANN for a period of three years (up to october 2015) with two possible extensions of one year. The increased transparency in the IANA process that it will establish will be part of the progress towards the objective. Further discussions will have to take place to identify whatever evolution could be envisaged. An important topic indeed. Best Bertrand On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, John Curran > wrote: On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > But has ICANN, ISOC, RIRs, IANA or any other relevant body ever formally > raised change in this particular area (root zone authorisation) with DOC, in > the formal way in which change was suggested on the JPA agreement which > eventually led to the AOC? Yes, as formal comments into NTIA's IANA Functions contract solicitation: ARIN - "It is no surprise that NTIA would undertake a comprehensive review of the IANA functions, given the IANA functions are an essential piece of the overall foundation of the Internet. No one would disagree that the Internet has grown and evolved significantly since the first IANA functions contract in 2000. With this success comes a more diverse global community of stakeholders with new concerns and expectations. In order to continue to build confidence in the Internet, it is critical that the IANA functions be managed in a way that is open, transparent and globally accountable. This comprehensive review is just one step in the eventual internationalization of oversight of the IANA functions." NRO - "In a recent letter to ICANN, the NRO introduced a proposal for moving forward in the relationship between ICANN and the US Government: “The NRO suggests that ICANN, through these coming negotiations, should advocate for a staged reduction of the level of DoC’s oversight to IANA. This process could possibly involve a transition from a contract to a cooperative agreement, and ultimately arrival at a non-binding arrangement, such as an affirmation of commitments (mirroring, of course, the successful progression in the relationship between ICANN itself and the US government).” ISOC - "For the Internet Society, it remains important for the IANA functions to continue to be a part of the Internet ecosystem, and that the IANA functions operator is permitted to continue its evolution toward becoming an internationally-accepted, private sector (i.e., multistakeholder) entity. This approach needs to be maintained and enhanced, as it is best suited to serving the global public interest." ICANN - "ICANN urges the DOC to evolve the IANA functions framework following the model set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments. By incorporating the principles of transparency and global accountability, and providing a clear path toward transitioning the IANA functions to the private sector, the DOC can finally complete the objective it set forth in the White Paper over a decade ago: to allow for global participation in the management of Internet names and addresses." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 11:42:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:42:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <4FF2D537.6090700 at cafonso.ca>, at 08:19:19 on Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn now) relies on >law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to determine what >LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies. The law enforcers are simply cutting out the middle man (but you don't have to listen to them any more that you'd listen to anyone else). Numerous governments have spoken (at ICANN and RIR meetings) about the need for more regard for the needs of law enforcement, and I don't see a problem with them bringing along some real life law enforcement people to explain the issues at first hand. If you want to bring along some real criminals, to explain why they need various vulnerabilities to continue, feel free. But we don't have to listen to them either! At the end of the day the PDP will resolve some kind of outcome, taking into account these various inputs. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jul 3 11:50:45 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:50:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, What it also says to me is that we, aka the stakeholders all and sundry, have between 3-7 years to figure out how to convince NTIA that they can safely allow the responsibility for this bit of oversight to migrate elsewhere. avri On 2 Jul 2012, at 21:12, McTim wrote: > I think the url speaks for itself > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel or A name indicates what the thing we seek is being called in this instance or ... An address indicates where something that may actually only have care of info, is located or ... A route tends to be how we got there since we rarely know a-priori (not that much strict source routing around) or ... every time i read your sig, i a) remember Jon fondly - he was so very nice to me as a new IETF participant in ~1990, and b) realize how much more complex things are these days, > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 13:32:04 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:32:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may edit Avri: "we, aka the stakeholders all and sundry, have [3] years to figure out how...responsibility for this bit of oversight [can] safely migrate elsewhere." As there's nothing to convince NTIA about, if there is a not a solid proposal on the global table. All and sundry might then hope, within 4 years of effort, to convince NTIA of its merits. A faster timetable is possible, if a solid proposal is developed within a year, and NTIA is convinced that is the case within 2 more years of administratively proper proceedings soliciting everyone's input on same. That ICANN, ISOC, and the RIRs are all on the record favoring a shift helps, but is not sufficient. The accelerated schedule however is not particularly likely given global Internet multistakeholder deliberation speeds. In my always humble opinion. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:50 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-key-internet-functions-icann Hi, What it also says to me is that we, aka the stakeholders all and sundry, have between 3-7 years to figure out how to convince NTIA that they can safely allow the responsibility for this bit of oversight to migrate elsewhere. avri On 2 Jul 2012, at 21:12, McTim wrote: > I think the url speaks for itself > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel or A name indicates what the thing we seek is being called in this instance or ... An address indicates where something that may actually only have care of info, is located or ... A route tends to be how we got there since we rarely know a-priori (not that much strict source routing around) or ... every time i read your sig, i a) remember Jon fondly - he was so very nice to me as a new IETF participant in ~1990, and b) realize how much more complex things are these days, > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 13:45:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:45:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 17:32:04 on Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Lee W McKnight writes >A faster timetable is possible, if a solid proposal is developed within >a year, and NTIA is convinced that is the case within 2 more years of >administratively proper proceedings soliciting everyone's input on >same.  That ICANN, ISOC, and the RIRs are all on the record favoring a >shift helps, but is not sufficient. Is this a post-Beckstrom ICANN view? I was always under the impression that one of his top priorities was that the IANA contract stayed with them. Given that policy development ought to be bottom-up, when should (in your opinion) ICANN start scheduling a WG to discuss this 'shift'. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jul 3 15:06:39 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:06:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Entia=2Edoc=2Egov/pre?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ss-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-manageme?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nt-key-internet-functions-icann?= In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B106237@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Roland, As to shifting IANA away from ICANN, that is another matter. I was referring specifically to NTIA's administrative procedures oversight role. Re ICANN's views on same, quoting John's email: ICANN - > "ICANN urges the DOC to evolve the IANA functions framework following the > model set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments. By incorporating the > principles of transparency and global accountability, and providing a clear > path toward transitioning the IANA functions to the private sector, the DOC > can finally complete the objective it set forth in the White Paper over a > decade ago: to allow for global participation in the management of Internet > names and addresses." Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-key-internet-functions-icann In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1061E7 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 17:32:04 on Tue, 3 Jul 2012, Lee W McKnight writes >A faster timetable is possible, if a solid proposal is developed within >a year, and NTIA is convinced that is the case within 2 more years of >administratively proper proceedings soliciting everyone's input on >same. That ICANN, ISOC, and the RIRs are all on the record favoring a >shift helps, but is not sufficient. Is this a post-Beckstrom ICANN view? I was always under the impression that one of his top priorities was that the IANA contract stayed with them. Given that policy development ought to be bottom-up, when should (in your opinion) ICANN start scheduling a WG to discuss this 'shift'. -- 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 aminou20022001 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 3 16:04:57 2012 From: aminou20022001 at yahoo.com (Aminou Ndala TITA) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] I need your help-SCAMMMMMMMMMMMMMM In-Reply-To: <201207031225.q63CPJZh023650@imr-da03.mx.aol.com> Message-ID: <1341345897.23046.YahooMailClassic@web43144.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Aminou Ndala TITAIntellectual Property Consultant Deputy Secretary General ISOC Cameroom P.O Box 963Bamenda- NorthWest RegionCameroon Tel.+237 77364416 E-mail: aminou20022001 at yahoo.com            ndala at isoc-cameroon.org                --- On Tue, 7/3/12, Koven Ronald wrote: From: Koven Ronald Subject: [governance] I need your help.....Koven Ronald To: Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2012, 8:25 AM Hello,    I'm writing this with tears, It is not my intension writing you but I have to, my family and I came down to Madrid, Spain for a short vacation and really it was unannounced but unfortunately, we were robbed last night on our way back to the hotel where we lodged and all our cash, credit cards and cell phones were stolen. I sustain some bruises on my left arm and really in pains here. We've reported the incident to the embassy and the Police but they're not helping issues at all.. Our return flight back home leaves in few hours from now but we're having problems settling the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't let us leave until we settle the bills....am really freaked out at the moment. I really need your help, Please I need you to loan me some money, I promise to refund you immediately i get back home. All i need is $1,350...Please i cant afford to miss my return flight back home, Please let me know if you can help me with the money. Koven Ronald -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Jul 3 16:07:46 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:07:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 3 Jul 2012, at 01:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > In respect of the second, we have at least four different approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in the "Quo Vadis" workshop). I would like to add the suggestion that this is a task for the IGF to pick up and EC, in some phrase variation or other, should be [a, the] theme for IGF2013. Others have suggested this at various times in the past. I think now is the time to just do it. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 23:13:34 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:13:34 +0800 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <4FF3B4DE.1010100@ciroap.org> On 03/07/12 20:46, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > > What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more > declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet > Freedom of 2010 by a group of NGOs > Do you have a link for that? I found http://www.genevasummit.org/media/20, but it is dead, nor is it on archive.org. > and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of 2012 by Praxis think > tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. > Thanks, I added this to the links page at http://igcaucus.org/links and added years. Am I still missing any? Feel free to add this list to the IRP site too, or better, link to the IGC's copy. BTW, does everyone know that the IRP's main website is down (but the charter site is up)? Not sure about the mailing list, but I'm cc'ing to it in case it is up. > It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on > Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. > > > > Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might > limit the effects of such efforts. > Indeed. Part of the problem is that whereas there are strong global action networks on issues like IP and the environment, in IG we have only the IGC, and it is invisible to (or at least ignored by) large parts of the Internet activist community. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jul 3 23:24:28 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:24:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FF3B76C.9000801@ciroap.org> On 04/07/12 04:07, Avri Doria wrote: > I would like to add the suggestion that this is a task for the IGF to > pick up and EC, in some phrase variation or other, should be [a, the] > theme for IGF2013. Others have suggested this at various times in the > past. I think now is the time to just do it. avri Agreed, let's ensure this message comes through in our opening and/or closing civil society statement, which presumably Sala and/or Izumi may deliver. And that the civil society representatives on the MAG (again, Izumi et al) will transmit this message to the MAG. Since CSTD has dropped the ball on EC, the IGF should pick it up again, otherwise it will be left to others such as the ITU. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jul 3 23:37:56 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 23:37:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy, Indeed, in my view, it is far too US centric and fails to build on and recognize the significant work done by many key experts and organizations involved in the WSIS and IGF processes over the last 9-10 years (if not longer) Suffice it to say, I agree with most of your comments. I really expected something better from organizations such as Access regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-07-03, at 12:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. > > It's not very good. > > For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. > > For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital rights group has decided not to sign on. > > Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short document, to the principle "don’t punish innovators for their users' actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd include. > > All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign onto it? > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > 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 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 4 02:35:28 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 08:35:28 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: (message from Avri Doria on Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:07:46 -0400) References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > On 3 Jul 2012, at 01:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > In respect of the second, we have at least four different > > approaches: Norbert's Enhanced Cooperation Task Force that would > > develop "Request for Action" documents, Wolfgang's > > multistakeholder expert group to look into enhanced cooperation > > mechanisms (much like what the CSTD could have formed but didn't) > > that he says "could" (but would it?) emerge from the IGF this > > year, Parminder's suggestion that civil society propose our own > > concrete models first, and the widely-supported suggestion that we > > hold a pre-event in Baku to discuss all this (or at least do so in > > the "Quo Vadis" workshop). > > I would like to add the suggestion that this is a task for the IGF > to pick up and EC, in some phrase variation or other, should be [a, > the] theme for IGF2013. > > Others have suggested this at various times in the past. I think > now is the time to just do it. While I'm in strong agreement with the view that "now is the time to just do it", I would say that pretty much by definition, Enhanced Cooperation can't be done without active involvement of at least some governments. There needs to be a credible and reasonably attractive invitation to governments to cooperate constructively in a way in which all reasonable stakeholder concerns are appropriately taken into consideration. (As discussed earlier, I'm working on an Internet-Draft outlining my ideas; this should be available soon.) On the other hand, those who currently hold great power, industry incumbents and those governments which seek to protect the interests of such companies, are obviously opposed to having any meaningful discussion that could lead to significant changes. I would be very surprised if there is any chance of reaching consensus in a body like the MAG for making this [a, the] major theme of IGF2013. I'd nevertheless like us to push for this as hard as we can though. Every bit of civil society visibilty in this area is good since it reduces the temptations for governments to turn to ITU and/or plurilateral purely intergovernmental negotiations (like ACTA) for their perceived enhanced cooperation needs. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 4 03:57:52 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:57:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:42:20 +0100) References: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20120704075752.D2C887834@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4FF2D537.6090700 at cafonso.ca>, at 08:19:19 on Tue, 3 Jul > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > > >I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn now) relies on > >law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to determine what > >LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies. > > The law enforcers are simply cutting out the middle man (but you don't > have to listen to them any more that you'd listen to anyone else). Of course, the law makers have an important role which is not appropriately described by the derogatory term "middle man": They have the responsibility of balancing law enforcement interests against other legitimate interests of the general public, such as e.g. privacy rights, the interest of avoiding law enforcement costs that don't significantly increase the success of law enforcement, etc. > If you want to bring along some real criminals, to explain why they need > various vulnerabilities to continue, feel free. But we don't have to > listen to them either! :) But let's not forget the importance of including experts on the various legitimate interests of the general public which sometimes conflict with law enforcement interests. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 4 05:06:34 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:06:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <20120704075752.D2C887834@quill.bollow.ch> References: <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <20120704075752.D2C887834@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20120704075752.D2C887834 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:57:52 on Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >> >I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn now) relies on >> >law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to determine what >> >LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies. >> >> The law enforcers are simply cutting out the middle man (but you don't >> have to listen to them any more that you'd listen to anyone else). > >Of course, the law makers have an important role which is not >appropriately described by the derogatory term "middle man": No offence meant, it's a common expression here. >They have the responsibility of balancing law enforcement >interests against other legitimate interests of the general >public, such as e.g. privacy rights, the interest of avoiding >law enforcement costs that don't significantly increase the >success of law enforcement, etc. It seemed to come as a surprise to some, at the recent GAC meeting, that Governments also routinely consult with Privacy Regulators ahead of such events, and come with an already balanced view. And if (for a particular item of policy) that balance lies with Law Enforcement, it seems to me to be useful to bring them along to speak for themselves. Just as it should be possible (but less commonplace) to bring along the other regulators - which does happen more often at other venues like the OECD. >But let's not forget the importance of including experts on the >various legitimate interests of the general public which sometimes >conflict with law enforcement interests. Such interests seem well catered for in ALAC and NCUC, LEAs on the other hand, don't have their own constituency. Hmm, there's a thought... -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 06:19:15 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 13:19:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] US Govt Aggressive, Successful in Obtaining Twitter User Data Message-ID: <4FF418A3.4060005@gmail.com> Snip: *the firm accused prosecutors of trying to force its employees to violate federal law.* Published on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 by Common Dreams US Govt Aggressive, Successful in Obtaining Twitter User Data - Common Dreams staff The release of a 'transparency report ' by microblogging and social media company Twitter reveals that the US government is by far the most aggressive, and most successful, in seeking and obtaining private user information compared to other world governments. Twitter's transparency report reveals the US government was the most successful in extracting information. (Photograph: Iain Masterton/Alamy) In the report, released late Monday, the US government is shown to be responsible for nearly 80% of all requests of Twitter user data. Of those US government requests, according to Twitter, 75% resulted in disclosure of "some or all" of the information related to the account. Twitter says it notifies affected users of requests for their account info "unless we're prohibited by law." The transparency report -- Twitter's first -- reflects government demands for information from January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012. Out of all nations, the US made 679 user information requests out of a total of 849, compared with 98 requests from the Japanese government, 11 each from the Canadian and British governments and less than 10 from a number of other countries. Twitter's move towards greater transparency follows an example set by internet giant Google, which has also release transparency reports in recent years. According to reporting by/The Guardian'/s Ed Pilkington, Monday's report came on the same day that "a Manhattan judge ordered the website to hand over almost three months of tweets from an Occupy Wall Street protester. Judge Matthew Sciarrino, ordering Twitter to turn over the tweets of Malcolm Harris under the handle @destructuremal, said that posting in public comes with "consequences". */The Guardian/*'s Matt Williams provides details on the case of Harris, who was among hundreds of protesters arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge during the height of the Occupy movement's activity in the fall of 2011:Malcolm Harris is accused of disorderly conduct in relation to an Occupy protest on the Brooklyn Bridge in October. (Photograph: Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters) In January, the New York County district attorney's office issued a subpoena to Twitter, calling on the firm to hand over "any and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period 9/15/2011 -- 12/31/2011". Harris initially attempted to block the move, but was told that he had no proprietary interest to his own messages. Twitter countered that this contradicts its own terms and conditions, which explicitly states that users "retain their right to any content they submit, post or display on or through". Moreover, in its own legal challenge to the subpoena, *the firm accused prosecutors of trying to force its employees to violate federal law.* Lawyers for Twitter also argued that under the Uniform Act, prosecutors would need to obtain a subpoena in California before it could demand documents from a company based in that state. Monday's ruling found that a search warrant was indeed needed for a final day's worth of tweets by Harris as they fell within a timeline laid out in federal law. All else was fair game for the prosecutors, the judge found. The court will now review the material and provide the relevant tweets to the DA's office. In a statement, Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said he was "pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the Tweets at issue must be turned over". He added: "We look forward to Twitter's complying and to moving forward with the trial." Responding to the development, Harris's attorney Martin Stolar said: "I'm not surprised by the ruling, but I'm still disappointed by it." He added that he and Twitter could still mount a further challenge, stating that there was still "plenty of time to do that" before his client's next court appearance. Stolar suggested that the latest decision shows that the court fails to take into consideration 21st century developments when it comes to what should be covered under the fourth amendment. "That is somewhat bothersome," he added. https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: the-twitter-logo-reflecte-007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1341257302_46366.png Type: image/png Size: 46366 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: occupy-protesters-brookly-007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 34077 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jul 4 09:28:21 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:28:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <20120704075752.D2C8 87834@qu ill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> Just a quick comment on the move: LEAs are not regulators, they are justa what they are supposed to be: enforcers. Sent from a tablet On 04/07/2012, at 06:06, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <20120704075752.D2C887834 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 09:57:52 on Wed, 4 Jul 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >>> >I am always puzzled by how much Icann (and Arin, I learn now) relies on >>> >law enforcers instead of law makers (who are supposed to determine what >>> >LEAs can and cannot do) to advise on its policies. >>> >>> The law enforcers are simply cutting out the middle man (but you don't >>> have to listen to them any more that you'd listen to anyone else). >> >> Of course, the law makers have an important role which is not >> appropriately described by the derogatory term "middle man": > > No offence meant, it's a common expression here. > >> They have the responsibility of balancing law enforcement >> interests against other legitimate interests of the general >> public, such as e.g. privacy rights, the interest of avoiding >> law enforcement costs that don't significantly increase the >> success of law enforcement, etc. > > It seemed to come as a surprise to some, at the recent GAC meeting, that Governments also routinely consult with Privacy Regulators ahead of such events, and come with an already balanced view. > > And if (for a particular item of policy) that balance lies with Law Enforcement, it seems to me to be useful to bring them along to speak for themselves. Just as it should be possible (but less commonplace) to bring along the other regulators - which does happen more often at other venues like the OECD. > > >But let's not forget the importance of including experts on the > >various legitimate interests of the general public which sometimes > >conflict with law enforcement interests. > > Such interests seem well catered for in ALAC and NCUC, LEAs on the other hand, don't have their own constituency. Hmm, there's a thought... > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Jul 4 09:37:47 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:37:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! Message-ID: 4th of July ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Rispoli, Access Now Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM Subject: BREAKING NEWS: ACTA goes down! ** *Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now please consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. * This just in -- *the European Parliament, in a landslide vote, has voted down ACTA, with 478 votes against and only 39 in favor!* As one of the 380,000 people who called on MEPs to vote "No," congratulations to you and all the other organizations, communities, and Members of Parliament who have fought to defeat this dangerous international treaty. This morning, we met MEPs at the door as they entered Parliament for the vote (see picture to the right), giving them one last reminder to vote "No." Media and MEPs nodded to the strength of our global movement for digital freedom -- *we got their attention, and your signature on our petition helped make this happen!* Though today’s win is significant for our global movement for digital freedom, those that supported ACTA will undoubtedly dust themselves off and begin a new push to protect their business models at any cost. What we need to do now is focus on reforming these broken copyright and patent regimes and promote a culture that is conducive to creativity, free expression and an open internet. *We can only do this with your help. Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now we invite you to consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps.* The defeat of ACTA means there is one less agreement pushing ISPs to surveil and police users in the name of copyright. Without ACTA, countries can now engage in much needed reform to intellectual property laws. The people have spoken - international trade agreements that touch on our rights and our internet must be negotiated democratically and not behind closed doors. *When it comes to internet policy, we will not be messed with! * While artists should absolutely be compensated for their work, it should never come at the expense of our freedom of expression, access to the internet, and privacy online. So now is the time to *look beyond ACTA and work towards a new framework that recognizes our online practices rather than destroying them*, an intellectual property framework fit for the digital age. This global fight is not over and our small team is working hard to advocate for users like you. None of this work would be possible without the support of Access members -- *that's why contributions, even in small amounts, go a long way in allowing us to plan what to take on next.* *We can't stop now -- not with serious national and international battles on the horizon. Help us take on the next big fight, no matter where it is, by contributing to Access today.* Thanks for your support, Mike Rispoli The Access Campaign Team ------------------------------ *Access is an international NGO that promotes open access to the internet as a means to free, full and safe participation in society and the realization of human rights. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access. To reply, please email info at accessnow.org. **To unsubscribe, go to: ** http://www.accessnow.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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jul 4 10:19:44 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:19:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance Message-ID: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> A blog entry that I just posted to igfwatch.org. The organisation it describes is intended to be compatible with Norbert's proposal for an Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, though it isn't named as such below. Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance Jeremy Malcolm, 4 July 2012 http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/picking-up-where-the-igf-left-off-our-role-in-the-future-of-internet-governance Internet governance is reaching a crisis point. Internet-related public policies are being shaped by governments behind closed doors, sparking global street and online protests over agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Other governments, excluded from these fora, are taking recourse to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), or threatening to create their own Internet ghettos governed in a more closed, government-led process. States are using malware to wage cyber warfare, at the same time as the use of such malware by criminals is taken as justification for new incursions on personal freedoms. They are also putting forward new laws and regulations, such as SOPA and PIPA in the US and the Indian Internet Intermediary Guidelines, that seem to contradict their own public statements on Internet freedom, and could seriously impede global information flows. Corporations, too, have been taking policy decisions without public oversight or accountability – such as the financial blockade against Wikileaks, and the three (or five) strikes agreements reached between ISPs and representatives of content owners. This is not to say that good decisions aren't also being made – for example, there has recently been a profusion of relatively good statements of Internet principles by various stakeholders, and companies such as Google and Twitter have adopted some good internal policies to hold governments and industry to account for their attacks on user privacy and freedom of expression. But these individual statements and policies hang unsupported by any common public policy framework that could help provide coherence across industry sectors and regions, as well as offering a standard for assessment and accountability. The transnational (border-crossing) nature of the Internet demands that we have the ability to develop consistent global policies on issues that impact upon online rights and freedoms, and democracy demands that this be done in a manner that is inclusive of the individuals and transnational interest groups who are affected by those policies. Since neither the application of those policies nor the interest groups affected by them are neatly situated within national borders, governments alone cannot be the arbiters of these policies. But equally, by avoiding the imposition of a top-down intergovernmental solution (even if one existed, which it doesn't), we should not fall into the trap of accepting the status quo whereby governments and corporations alike develop their own public policies in an isolated and uncoordinated fashion, without reference to common standards of transparency, participation, or online norms grounded in human rights. Whilst the problem of regulatory incoherence as described above is widely acknowledged, there is much lack of clarity about the solution. In fact there is little more than a two-word catchphrase, “enhanced cooperation”, coined at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005 to describe what should be done to fill what its Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) described as “a vacuum within the context of existing structures, since there is no global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. ” As a May 2012 consultation meeting on the topic made evident, this catchphrase means different things to different people, ranging from simply stronger efforts at cooperation between existing fora and stakeholders, through to the establishment of a new UN-based Committee on Internet Related Policies. The latter option has sparked understandable (and probably insurmountable) fears, especially by the private sector, technical community, and OECD governments, but also by many ordinary Internet users. They fear firstly a governmental takeover of existing Internet governance functions of bodies such as ICANN and the IETF, that currently take place through private-sector and community-led processes, and with the light touch oversight of the US government. They also fear that outside of these technical areas, heavy-handed governmental regulation of Internet policy issues (particularly by repressive governments) would stifle or challenge the network's lightweight, adaptive and innovative nature. But whilst these fears are not without basis, there is a growing acceptance that the former option – the status quo – will be no better over the long term. Joining academics, NGOs and development activists who have been saying the same thing for years, industry stakeholders too are now beginning to acknowledge that there needs to be some kind of new multi-stakeholder Internet public policy body as a counterpart to and complement for the technical bodies such as ICANN and the IETF. Analyst Paul Budde, for example, wrote last month on CircleID that such an “internet community organisation” could, if “properly funded and stocked with the right international people to manage what is needed to watch over internet governance,” be “an excellent partner in the broader community of international organisations”. So, this is the key. A new organisation is needed, but none of them that are on the table right now. It shouldn't be based in the UN, shouldn't detract from the roles of ICANN and the IETF, and shouldn't stifle the net's open, organic and user-driven fundamentals. Following the WSIS process criteria, its operation should be transparent, participatory and inclusive. It should be able to develop (but not to enforce, since that is not the Internet way) statements of norms and principles to guide policy-makers along lines congruent with the rough consensus of all participating stakeholders, in areas where such consensus is possible. It should also be able to assess (again, in a non-binding way) the compliance of other policy processes with those norms and principles – for example, offering a standard against which the ACTA or TPPA negotiations could be judged. Beyond developing and assessing compliance with these general high-level norms, it could also form working groups to address specific issues, such as the Internet-related parts of ACTA and the TPPA, as an alternative to the ad hoc intergovernmental-only negotiations on these issues as occurs at present. Another case example could be the development of online privacy principles to guide standards bodies such as the IETF and W3C in developing technical specifications. At the moment, these bodies, (and ICANN too, in respect of naming and numbering issues), are attempting to conduct their own public policy discussions, but by reason of the narrow participation that they draw from non-technical users, their success has been decidedly mixed. As well as issue-based working groups, the new organisation could form regional working groups, to address at a regional level issues that it is not practical or relevant to address more broadly. What would the new organisation not do? Naturally, it would not take over the naming and numbering functions of ICANN. It would not even exercise oversight over those functions, since being a voluntary organisation, it could have no possible mandate to do so. It might recommend processes by which political oversight of ICANN's functions could be internationalised at some future time (and maybe possibly even suggest a role for itself in that transition), because that is certainly a public policy issue of considerable political importance to many stakeholders, that can't usefully be conducted within ICANN itself. But it would not have the power to actually make any changes to ICANN's functions, or indeed to do anything. Its recommendations would be purely advisory, like the Requests for Comment (RFCs) of the IETF. Now the obvious question is, shouldn't the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) be doing all this? Yes, of course it should. The Tunis Agenda agreed at WSIS clearly specifies that the IGF's role should include making recommendations on emerging issues, and to promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. These are almost exactly the two roles of norm-setting and evaluation that I set out for the new organisation above. (Of course, the IGF also does other things, and a few of of them well, but as to these two elements of its mandate, it has been a complete wash-out.) But whilst the IGF should take up these roles, we can't expect it to do so. Why not? Because the IGF is a UN body, and therefore despite how innovative it was originally mandated to be in its format and functions, in practice it has quickly become shackled with the limitation of only acting by UN-style (essentially full) consensus. If any of the stakeholders object to the IGF making policy recommendations – which certain of them reliably do – then it simply won't do so. In order for enhanced cooperation to work, it can only be a voluntary mechanism to which stakeholders who want to collaborate on the development of policy can opt-in, and which those who don't wish to can ignore. The IGF as it has evolved is not such a beast. This is not that it could never have worked; it could, if it had been designed appropriately to make decisions on the basis of a rough consensus, developed through a deliberative democratic process utilising facilitated online discussions and small group interactions. But that was never tried, and the IGF has since become ossified along the more traditional lines upon which its executive staff Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, and those with influence over them in those early days, designed it. That significant reform is no longer possible is illustrated by fact that even the token improvements most recently recommended for the IGF weren't raised by its own Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), but by a working group of the Commission on Science and Technology and Development (CSTD). Being fully intergovernmental and operating on a full consensus basis, the CSTD couldn't even recommend the formation of working groups for the IGF; still less the reforms it would need to carry out enhanced cooperation. Having said all that, the new organisation will need to work closely with the IGF. The global, regional and national IGFs will have an important (indeed probably the most important) agenda-setting and capacity building role for the community that will develop policy recommendations through the new organisation. The IGF, in that role, with its completely open structure and lack of formality, could in fact become more important than ever before. But by virtue of those very aspects, the IGF in its present form will not make be able to make policy recommendations or to assess the compliance of other Internet governance bodies with agreed procedural norms. But just because the IGF is not qualified to do so, that doesn't necessarily mean we need a brand new organisation – surely there might be some other existing body that could develop and promulgate global Internet policy norms? But if so, where is it? Not ICANN; public policy issues outside of technical naming and numbering functions lie outside its mandate. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is not up to the task; it is not multi-stakeholder and lacks a sufficiently formal structure. The Internet Society (ISOC) and the ITU are not multi-stakeholder entities, and are in denial about the need for any enhanced cooperation process, as they insist that they are already doing it. The Global Network Initiative excludes governments, and in any case has its own separate and narrower role (which would continue, informed by the new organisation). The OECD has a reasonable consultative structure, but is a club of rich countries that the developing states won't accept. Similarly the Council of Europe (though its Cybercrime Convention was opened to non-member states). So we need to start again. In doing so, there are four essential characteristics around which the new organisation should be designed. First, it must be voluntary; both in its participation, and in the force that its recommendations carry. This should be a familiar structure for those versed in Internet governance, as the IETF operates in that way. Indeed, the IETF was the model which I originally had in mind when I approached the doctoral research that became my book. Similar proposals for a policy body based on the IETF (such as ISOC's old Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF)), go back even further, and others continue to be made today. However, the structure I eventually proposed for a multi-stakeholder Internet governance network differs from the IETF in several important respects, the most critical of which are reflected in the remaining criteria below. Second, if the new organisation is not UN-linked (which apart from being unacceptable to many Internet users, is also now political unlikely, since the CSTD declined to convene a multi-stakeholder working group to consider enhanced cooperation mechanisms), there is no reason why this organisation should not be established by the community. In short, Internet users have to take the initiative of proposing this positive agenda for Internet governance, just as they did in defeating SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Indeed, at this point, if civil society does not take the lead (perhaps supported by a handful of progressive companies or governments), it probably won't happen at all. Third, there needs to be a defined role for governments within the new organisation. Is it possible for governments to participate within a private governance organisation? Of course; think of ICANN itself, in which governments participate through the Government Advisory Council (GAC). Indeed, the idea of a private organisation carrying out a global public good, with the participation and support of governments through the international system, goes back centuries, at least to the 1863 formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Whilst the participation of governments may still alarm some Internet activists, this is why the second principle, that the organisation be established by the community, is so critical. Fourth, in line with the Tunis Agenda of WSIS which highlights the distinct contributions that stakeholders have to offer in their respective roles, the structure of the organisation should reflect this, through an executive body with formal representation of governmental, private sector and technical community, and civil society members. Though the IGF's structure does not do so, that of other multi-stakeholder networks do – good examples include the Forest Stewardship Council and the Fair Labor Association. In practical terms, this should mean that decisions of the body, such as the adoption of principles, should be made by rough consensus within each class of membership, as well as overall. A further corollary is that each stakeholder group will retain a measure of independence within its own sphere of competence. Thus for example, governmental members might reserve the capacity to take principles adopted by the organisation, and convert them into an intergovernmental agreement. This is much like the Council of Europe did in 2011, with the adoption of a Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles, that had been developed through a multi-stakeholder process. (On the other hand, there are good reasons to limit the development of norms by the new organisation to high-level, soft law instruments, in order to avoid distractive wrangling over treaty language.) Such an organisation, possessing a structure that recognises the role of governments but does not privilege them over other stakeholders, and a constitution that provides for the accountability and transparency that the Internet community expects, would distinguish the new organisation both from the ineffective IGF, and from the unrepresentative ACTA and TPPA negotiations. It would fill the vacuum in Internet governance that WGIG observed in 2005, and bring to an end the ongoing wrangling over enhanced cooperation that continues to this day. Best of all, if this new organisation is established by the community, then we don't need to wait for anyone's approval to to it: we can start right now. Watch this space. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Wed Jul 4 10:29:05 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:29:05 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FF45331.1030008@eff.org> Please count on me. I volunteer to help! On 7/3/12 8:54 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > To avoid duplication or working in parallel I propose to organize the Quo Vadis workshop as a joint event IGC & DC. > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] > Gesendet: Di 03.07.2012 14:46 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Betreff: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom > > > > What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of 2010 by a group of NGOs and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of 2012 by Praxis think tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. > > > > It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. > > > > Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit the effects of such efforts. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > > A-8010 Graz > > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juli 2012 06:57 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom > > > > Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. > > It's not very good. > > For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. > > For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital rights group has decided not to sign on. > > Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd include. > > All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign onto it? > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jul 4 10:30:57 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:30:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance In-Reply-To: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> References: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, I think it is too early to give up on the IGF. As I have argued elsewhere, its locus of control is shifting from the UN initiation to the input of multiple national and regional IGF-like multi-stakehoder meetings. Not there yet, but it is becoming a national and regionally motivated organization. I see a twofold problem with starting from scratch yet again : - need to attract the governments - need to go through all the early growing pain nonsense that the IGF is just starting to come out of. But there is lot I agree with in the content of your blog. I just think we need to get the IGF to do it and not focus on yet another new organization. avri On 4 Jul 2012, at 10:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > A blog entry that I just posted to igfwatch.org. The organisation it describes is intended to be compatible with Norbert's proposal for an Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, though it isn't named as such below. > > Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance > Jeremy Malcolm, 4 July 2012 > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/picking-up-where-the-igf-left-off-our-role-in-the-future-of-internet-governance > Internet governance is reaching a crisis point. Internet-related public policies are being shaped by governments behind closed doors, sparking global street and online protests over agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Other governments, excluded from these fora, are taking recourse to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), or threatening to create their own Internet ghettos governed in a more closed, government-led process. States are using malware to wage cyber warfare, at the same time as the use of such malware by criminals is taken as justification for new incursions on personal freedoms. They are also putting forward new laws and regulations, such as SOPA and PIPA in the US and the Indian Internet Intermediary Guidelines, that seem to contradict their own public statements on Internet freedom, and could seriously impede global information flows. > > Corporations, too, have been taking policy decisions without public oversight or accountability – such as the financial blockade against Wikileaks, and the three (or five) strikes agreements reached between ISPs and representatives of content owners. This is not to say that good decisions aren't also being made – for example, there has recently been a profusion of relatively good statements of Internet principles by various stakeholders, and companies such as Google and Twitter have adopted some good internal policies to hold governments and industry to account for their attacks on user privacy and freedom of expression. But these individual statements and policies hang unsupported by any common public policy framework that could help provide coherence across industry sectors and regions, as well as offering a standard for assessment and accountability. > > The transnational (border-crossing) nature of the Internet demands that we have the ability to develop consistent global policies on issues that impact upon online rights and freedoms, and democracy demands that this be done in a manner that is inclusive of the individuals and transnational interest groups who are affected by those policies. Since neither the application of those policies nor the interest groups affected by them are neatly situated within national borders, governments alone cannot be the arbiters of these policies. But equally, by avoiding the imposition of a top-down intergovernmental solution (even if one existed, which it doesn't), we should not fall into the trap of accepting the status quo whereby governments and corporations alike develop their own public policies in an isolated and uncoordinated fashion, without reference to common standards of transparency, participation, or online norms grounded in human rights. > > Whilst the problem of regulatory incoherence as described above is widely acknowledged, there is much lack of clarity about the solution. In fact there is little more than a two-word catchphrase, “enhanced cooperation”, coined at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005 to describe what should be done to fill what its Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) described as “a vacuum within the context of existing structures, since there is no global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. ” As a May 2012 consultation meeting on the topic made evident, this catchphrase means different things to different people, ranging from simply stronger efforts at cooperation between existing fora and stakeholders, through to the establishment of a new UN-based Committee on Internet Related Policies. > > The latter option has sparked understandable (and probably insurmountable) fears, especially by the private sector, technical community, and OECD governments, but also by many ordinary Internet users. They fear firstly a governmental takeover of existing Internet governance functions of bodies such as ICANN and the IETF, that currently take place through private-sector and community-led processes, and with the light touch oversight of the US government. They also fear that outside of these technical areas, heavy-handed governmental regulation of Internet policy issues (particularly by repressive governments) would stifle or challenge the network's lightweight, adaptive and innovative nature. > > But whilst these fears are not without basis, there is a growing acceptance that the former option – the status quo – will be no better over the long term. Joining academics, NGOs and development activists who have been saying the same thing for years, industry stakeholders too are now beginning to acknowledge that there needs to be some kind of new multi-stakeholder Internet public policy body as a counterpart to and complement for the technical bodies such as ICANN and the IETF. Analyst Paul Budde, for example, wrote last month on CircleID that such an “internet community organisation” could, if “properly funded and stocked with the right international people to manage what is needed to watch over internet governance,” be “an excellent partner in the broader community of international organisations”. > > So, this is the key. A new organisation is needed, but none of them that are on the table right now. It shouldn't be based in the UN, shouldn't detract from the roles of ICANN and the IETF, and shouldn't stifle the net's open, organic and user-driven fundamentals. Following the WSIS process criteria, its operation should be transparent, participatory and inclusive. It should be able to develop (but not to enforce, since that is not the Internet way) statements of norms and principles to guide policy-makers along lines congruent with the rough consensus of all participating stakeholders, in areas where such consensus is possible. It should also be able to assess (again, in a non-binding way) the compliance of other policy processes with those norms and principles – for example, offering a standard against which the ACTA or TPPA negotiations could be judged. > > Beyond developing and assessing compliance with these general high-level norms, it could also form working groups to address specific issues, such as the Internet-related parts of ACTA and the TPPA, as an alternative to the ad hoc intergovernmental-only negotiations on these issues as occurs at present. Another case example could be the development of online privacy principles to guide standards bodies such as the IETF and W3C in developing technical specifications. At the moment, these bodies, (and ICANN too, in respect of naming and numbering issues), are attempting to conduct their own public policy discussions, but by reason of the narrow participation that they draw from non-technical users, their success has been decidedly mixed. As well as issue-based working groups, the new organisation could form regional working groups, to address at a regional level issues that it is not practical or relevant to address more broadly. > > What would the new organisation not do? Naturally, it would not take over the naming and numbering functions of ICANN. It would not even exercise oversight over those functions, since being a voluntary organisation, it could have no possible mandate to do so. It might recommend processes by which political oversight of ICANN's functions could be internationalised at some future time (and maybe possibly even suggest a role for itself in that transition), because that is certainly a public policy issue of considerable political importance to many stakeholders, that can't usefully be conducted within ICANN itself. But it would not have the power to actually make any changes to ICANN's functions, or indeed to do anything. Its recommendations would be purely advisory, like the Requests for Comment (RFCs) of the IETF. > > Now the obvious question is, shouldn't the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) be doing all this? Yes, of course it should. The Tunis Agenda agreed at WSIS clearly specifies that the IGF's role should include making recommendations on emerging issues, and to promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. These are almost exactly the two roles of norm-setting and evaluation that I set out for the new organisation above. (Of course, the IGF also does other things, and a few of of them well, but as to these two elements of its mandate, it has been a complete wash-out.) > > But whilst the IGF should take up these roles, we can't expect it to do so. Why not? Because the IGF is a UN body, and therefore despite how innovative it was originally mandated to be in its format and functions, in practice it has quickly become shackled with the limitation of only acting by UN-style (essentially full) consensus. If any of the stakeholders object to the IGF making policy recommendations – which certain of them reliably do – then it simply won't do so. In order for enhanced cooperation to work, it can only be a voluntary mechanism to which stakeholders who want to collaborate on the development of policy can opt-in, and which those who don't wish to can ignore. The IGF as it has evolved is not such a beast. > > This is not that it could never have worked; it could, if it had been designed appropriately to make decisions on the basis of a rough consensus, developed through a deliberative democratic process utilising facilitated online discussions and small group interactions. But that was never tried, and the IGF has since become ossified along the more traditional lines upon which its executive staff Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, and those with influence over them in those early days, designed it. That significant reform is no longer possible is illustrated by fact that even the token improvements most recently recommended for the IGF weren't raised by its own Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), but by a working group of the Commission on Science and Technology and Development (CSTD). Being fully intergovernmental and operating on a full consensus basis, the CSTD couldn't even recommend the formation of working groups for the IGF; still less the reforms it would need to carry out enhanced cooperation. > > Having said all that, the new organisation will need to work closely with the IGF. The global, regional and national IGFs will have an important (indeed probably the most important) agenda-setting and capacity building role for the community that will develop policy recommendations through the new organisation. The IGF, in that role, with its completely open structure and lack of formality, could in fact become more important than ever before. But by virtue of those very aspects, the IGF in its present form will not make be able to make policy recommendations or to assess the compliance of other Internet governance bodies with agreed procedural norms. > > But just because the IGF is not qualified to do so, that doesn't necessarily mean we need a brand new organisation – surely there might be some other existing body that could develop and promulgate global Internet policy norms? But if so, where is it? Not ICANN; public policy issues outside of technical naming and numbering functions lie outside its mandate. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is not up to the task; it is not multi-stakeholder and lacks a sufficiently formal structure. The Internet Society (ISOC) and the ITU are not multi-stakeholder entities, and are in denial about the need for any enhanced cooperation process, as they insist that they are already doing it. The Global Network Initiative excludes governments, and in any case has its own separate and narrower role (which would continue, informed by the new organisation). The OECD has a reasonable consultative structure, but is a club of rich countries that the developing states won't accept. Similarly the Council of Europe (though its Cybercrime Convention was opened to non-member states). > > So we need to start again. In doing so, there are four essential characteristics around which the new organisation should be designed. > > First, it must be voluntary; both in its participation, and in the force that its recommendations carry. This should be a familiar structure for those versed in Internet governance, as the IETF operates in that way. Indeed, the IETF was the model which I originally had in mind when I approached the doctoral research that became my book. Similar proposals for a policy body based on the IETF (such as ISOC's old Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF)), go back even further, and others continue to be made today. However, the structure I eventually proposed for a multi-stakeholder Internet governance network differs from the IETF in several important respects, the most critical of which are reflected in the remaining criteria below. > > Second, if the new organisation is not UN-linked (which apart from being unacceptable to many Internet users, is also now political unlikely, since the CSTD declined to convene a multi-stakeholder working group to consider enhanced cooperation mechanisms), there is no reason why this organisation should not be established by the community. In short, Internet users have to take the initiative of proposing this positive agenda for Internet governance, just as they did in defeating SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Indeed, at this point, if civil society does not take the lead (perhaps supported by a handful of progressive companies or governments), it probably won't happen at all. > > Third, there needs to be a defined role for governments within the new organisation. Is it possible for governments to participate within a private governance organisation? Of course; think of ICANN itself, in which governments participate through the Government Advisory Council (GAC). Indeed, the idea of a private organisation carrying out a global public good, with the participation and support of governments through the international system, goes back centuries, at least to the 1863 formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Whilst the participation of governments may still alarm some Internet activists, this is why the second principle, that the organisation be established by the community, is so critical. > > Fourth, in line with the Tunis Agenda of WSIS which highlights the distinct contributions that stakeholders have to offer in their respective roles, the structure of the organisation should reflect this, through an executive body with formal representation of governmental, private sector and technical community, and civil society members. Though the IGF's structure does not do so, that of other multi-stakeholder networks do – good examples include the Forest Stewardship Council and the Fair Labor Association. In practical terms, this should mean that decisions of the body, such as the adoption of principles, should be made by rough consensus within each class of membership, as well as overall. > > A further corollary is that each stakeholder group will retain a measure of independence within its own sphere of competence. Thus for example, governmental members might reserve the capacity to take principles adopted by the organisation, and convert them into an intergovernmental agreement. This is much like the Council of Europe did in 2011, with the adoption of a Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles, that had been developed through a multi-stakeholder process. (On the other hand, there are good reasons to limit the development of norms by the new organisation to high-level, soft law instruments, in order to avoid distractive wrangling over treaty language.) > > Such an organisation, possessing a structure that recognises the role of governments but does not privilege them over other stakeholders, and a constitution that provides for the accountability and transparency that the Internet community expects, would distinguish the new organisation both from the ineffective IGF, and from the unrepresentative ACTA and TPPA negotiations. It would fill the vacuum in Internet governance that WGIG observed in 2005, and bring to an end the ongoing wrangling over enhanced cooperation that continues to this day. Best of all, if this new organisation is established by the community, then we don't need to wait for anyone's approval to to it: we can start right now. > > Watch this space. > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > 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 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 4 11:01:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:01:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:28:21 on Wed, 4 Jul 2012, c.a. writes >Just a quick comment on the move: LEAs are not regulators, they are >justa what they are supposed to be: enforcers. In the UK there are various laws which are enforced by regulators, including much to do with privacy, telecoms and consumer rights. http://regulatorylaw.co.uk/List_of_regulatory_bodies.html LEA =/= Police. (Doesn't the OPC enforce privacy law in Canada?) -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jul 4 11:11:22 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:11:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B107503@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Happy Independence Day! ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! 4th of July ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Rispoli, Access Now > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM Subject: BREAKING NEWS: ACTA goes down! Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now please consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. This just in -- the European Parliament, in a landslide vote, has voted down ACTA, with 478 votes against and only 39 in favor! As one of the 380,000 people who called on MEPs to vote "No," congratulations to you and all the other organizations, communities, and Members of Parliament who have fought to defeat this dangerous international treaty. This morning, we met MEPs at the door as they entered Parliament for the vote (see picture to the right), giving them one last reminder to vote "No." Media and MEPs nodded to the strength of our global movement for digital freedom -- we got their attention, and your signature on our petition helped make this happen! Though today’s win is significant for our global movement for digital freedom, those that supported ACTA will undoubtedly dust themselves off and begin a new push to protect their business models at any cost. What we need to do now is focus on reforming these broken copyright and patent regimes and promote a culture that is conducive to creativity, free expression and an open internet. We can only do this with your help. Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now we invite you to consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. The defeat of ACTA means there is one less agreement pushing ISPs to surveil and police users in the name of copyright. Without ACTA, countries can now engage in much needed reform to intellectual property laws. The people have spoken - international trade agreements that touch on our rights and our internet must be negotiated democratically and not behind closed doors. When it comes to internet policy, we will not be messed with! While artists should absolutely be compensated for their work, it should never come at the expense of our freedom of expression, access to the internet, and privacy online. So now is the time to look beyond ACTA and work towards a new framework that recognizes our online practices rather than destroying them, an intellectual property framework fit for the digital age. This global fight is not over and our small team is working hard to advocate for users like you. None of this work would be possible without the support of Access members -- that's why contributions, even in small amounts, go a long way in allowing us to plan what to take on next. We can't stop now -- not with serious national and international battles on the horizon. Help us take on the next big fight, no matter where it is, by contributing to Access today. Thanks for your support, Mike Rispoli The Access Campaign Team ________________________________ Access is an international NGO that promotes open access to the internet as a means to free, full and safe participation in society and the realization of human rights. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access. To reply, please email info at accessnow.org. To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.accessnow.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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea00 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 11:26:58 2012 From: andrea00 at gmail.com (andrea) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 16:26:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 Avri On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is too early to give up on the IGF. As I have argued > elsewhere, its locus of control is shifting from the UN initiation to the > input of multiple national and regional IGF-like multi-stakehoder meetings. > Not there yet, but it is becoming a national and regionally motivated > organization. > > I see a twofold problem with starting from scratch yet again : > > - need to attract the governments > - need to go through all the early growing pain nonsense that the IGF is > just starting to come out of. > > But there is lot I agree with in the content of your blog. I just think > we need to get the IGF to do it and not focus on yet another new > organization. > > avri > > > On 4 Jul 2012, at 10:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > A blog entry that I just posted to igfwatch.org. The organisation it > describes is intended to be compatible with Norbert's proposal for an > Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, though it isn't named as such below. > > > > Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet > governance > > Jeremy Malcolm, 4 July 2012 > > > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/picking-up-where-the-igf-left-off-our-role-in-the-future-of-internet-governance > > Internet governance is reaching a crisis point. Internet-related public > policies are being shaped by governments behind closed doors, sparking > global street and online protests over agreements such as the Trans-Pacific > Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement > (ACTA). Other governments, excluded from these fora, are taking recourse to > the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), or threatening to create > their own Internet ghettos governed in a more closed, government-led > process. States are using malware to wage cyber warfare, at the same time > as the use of such malware by criminals is taken as justification for new > incursions on personal freedoms. They are also putting forward new laws and > regulations, such as SOPA and PIPA in the US and the Indian Internet > Intermediary Guidelines, that seem to contradict their own public > statements on Internet freedom, and could seriously impede global > information flows. > > > > Corporations, too, have been taking policy decisions without public > oversight or accountability – such as the financial blockade against > Wikileaks, and the three (or five) strikes agreements reached between ISPs > and representatives of content owners. This is not to say that good > decisions aren't also being made – for example, there has recently been a > profusion of relatively good statements of Internet principles by various > stakeholders, and companies such as Google and Twitter have adopted some > good internal policies to hold governments and industry to account for > their attacks on user privacy and freedom of expression. But these > individual statements and policies hang unsupported by any common public > policy framework that could help provide coherence across industry sectors > and regions, as well as offering a standard for assessment and > accountability. > > > > The transnational (border-crossing) nature of the Internet demands that > we have the ability to develop consistent global policies on issues that > impact upon online rights and freedoms, and democracy demands that this be > done in a manner that is inclusive of the individuals and transnational > interest groups who are affected by those policies. Since neither the > application of those policies nor the interest groups affected by them are > neatly situated within national borders, governments alone cannot be the > arbiters of these policies. But equally, by avoiding the imposition of a > top-down intergovernmental solution (even if one existed, which it > doesn't), we should not fall into the trap of accepting the status quo > whereby governments and corporations alike develop their own public > policies in an isolated and uncoordinated fashion, without reference to > common standards of transparency, participation, or online norms grounded > in human rights. > > > > Whilst the problem of regulatory incoherence as described above is > widely acknowledged, there is much lack of clarity about the solution. In > fact there is little more than a two-word catchphrase, “enhanced > cooperation”, coined at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) > in 2005 to describe what should be done to fill what its Working Group on > Internet Governance (WGIG) described as “a vacuum within the context of > existing structures, since there is no global multi-stakeholder forum to > address Internet-related public policy issues. ” As a May 2012 consultation > meeting on the topic made evident, this catchphrase means different things > to different people, ranging from simply stronger efforts at cooperation > between existing fora and stakeholders, through to the establishment of a > new UN-based Committee on Internet Related Policies. > > > > The latter option has sparked understandable (and probably > insurmountable) fears, especially by the private sector, technical > community, and OECD governments, but also by many ordinary Internet users. > They fear firstly a governmental takeover of existing Internet governance > functions of bodies such as ICANN and the IETF, that currently take place > through private-sector and community-led processes, and with the light > touch oversight of the US government. They also fear that outside of these > technical areas, heavy-handed governmental regulation of Internet policy > issues (particularly by repressive governments) would stifle or challenge > the network's lightweight, adaptive and innovative nature. > > > > But whilst these fears are not without basis, there is a growing > acceptance that the former option – the status quo – will be no better over > the long term. Joining academics, NGOs and development activists who have > been saying the same thing for years, industry stakeholders too are now > beginning to acknowledge that there needs to be some kind of new > multi-stakeholder Internet public policy body as a counterpart to and > complement for the technical bodies such as ICANN and the IETF. Analyst > Paul Budde, for example, wrote last month on CircleID that such an > “internet community organisation” could, if “properly funded and stocked > with the right international people to manage what is needed to watch over > internet governance,” be “an excellent partner in the broader community of > international organisations”. > > > > So, this is the key. A new organisation is needed, but none of them that > are on the table right now. It shouldn't be based in the UN, shouldn't > detract from the roles of ICANN and the IETF, and shouldn't stifle the > net's open, organic and user-driven fundamentals. Following the WSIS > process criteria, its operation should be transparent, participatory and > inclusive. It should be able to develop (but not to enforce, since that is > not the Internet way) statements of norms and principles to guide > policy-makers along lines congruent with the rough consensus of all > participating stakeholders, in areas where such consensus is possible. It > should also be able to assess (again, in a non-binding way) the compliance > of other policy processes with those norms and principles – for example, > offering a standard against which the ACTA or TPPA negotiations could be > judged. > > > > Beyond developing and assessing compliance with these general high-level > norms, it could also form working groups to address specific issues, such > as the Internet-related parts of ACTA and the TPPA, as an alternative to > the ad hoc intergovernmental-only negotiations on these issues as occurs at > present. Another case example could be the development of online privacy > principles to guide standards bodies such as the IETF and W3C in developing > technical specifications. At the moment, these bodies, (and ICANN too, in > respect of naming and numbering issues), are attempting to conduct their > own public policy discussions, but by reason of the narrow participation > that they draw from non-technical users, their success has been decidedly > mixed. As well as issue-based working groups, the new organisation could > form regional working groups, to address at a regional level issues that it > is not practical or relevant to address more broadly. > > > > What would the new organisation not do? Naturally, it would not take > over the naming and numbering functions of ICANN. It would not even > exercise oversight over those functions, since being a voluntary > organisation, it could have no possible mandate to do so. It might > recommend processes by which political oversight of ICANN's functions could > be internationalised at some future time (and maybe possibly even suggest a > role for itself in that transition), because that is certainly a public > policy issue of considerable political importance to many stakeholders, > that can't usefully be conducted within ICANN itself. But it would not have > the power to actually make any changes to ICANN's functions, or indeed to > do anything. Its recommendations would be purely advisory, like the > Requests for Comment (RFCs) of the IETF. > > > > Now the obvious question is, shouldn't the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) be doing all this? Yes, of course it should. The Tunis Agenda agreed > at WSIS clearly specifies that the IGF's role should include making > recommendations on emerging issues, and to promoting and assessing, on an > ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance > processes. These are almost exactly the two roles of norm-setting and > evaluation that I set out for the new organisation above. (Of course, the > IGF also does other things, and a few of of them well, but as to these two > elements of its mandate, it has been a complete wash-out.) > > > > But whilst the IGF should take up these roles, we can't expect it to do > so. Why not? Because the IGF is a UN body, and therefore despite how > innovative it was originally mandated to be in its format and functions, in > practice it has quickly become shackled with the limitation of only acting > by UN-style (essentially full) consensus. If any of the stakeholders object > to the IGF making policy recommendations – which certain of them reliably > do – then it simply won't do so. In order for enhanced cooperation to work, > it can only be a voluntary mechanism to which stakeholders who want to > collaborate on the development of policy can opt-in, and which those who > don't wish to can ignore. The IGF as it has evolved is not such a beast. > > > > This is not that it could never have worked; it could, if it had been > designed appropriately to make decisions on the basis of a rough consensus, > developed through a deliberative democratic process utilising facilitated > online discussions and small group interactions. But that was never tried, > and the IGF has since become ossified along the more traditional lines upon > which its executive staff Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer, and those with > influence over them in those early days, designed it. That significant > reform is no longer possible is illustrated by fact that even the token > improvements most recently recommended for the IGF weren't raised by its > own Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), but by a working group of the > Commission on Science and Technology and Development (CSTD). Being fully > intergovernmental and operating on a full consensus basis, the CSTD > couldn't even recommend the formation of working groups for the IGF; still > less the reforms it would need to carry out enhanced cooperation. > > > > Having said all that, the new organisation will need to work closely > with the IGF. The global, regional and national IGFs will have an important > (indeed probably the most important) agenda-setting and capacity building > role for the community that will develop policy recommendations through the > new organisation. The IGF, in that role, with its completely open structure > and lack of formality, could in fact become more important than ever > before. But by virtue of those very aspects, the IGF in its present form > will not make be able to make policy recommendations or to assess the > compliance of other Internet governance bodies with agreed procedural norms. > > > > But just because the IGF is not qualified to do so, that doesn't > necessarily mean we need a brand new organisation – surely there might be > some other existing body that could develop and promulgate global Internet > policy norms? But if so, where is it? Not ICANN; public policy issues > outside of technical naming and numbering functions lie outside its > mandate. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is not up to > the task; it is not multi-stakeholder and lacks a sufficiently formal > structure. The Internet Society (ISOC) and the ITU are not > multi-stakeholder entities, and are in denial about the need for any > enhanced cooperation process, as they insist that they are already doing > it. The Global Network Initiative excludes governments, and in any case has > its own separate and narrower role (which would continue, informed by the > new organisation). The OECD has a reasonable consultative structure, but is > a club of rich countries that the developing states won't accept. Similarly > the Council of Europe (though its Cybercrime Convention was opened to > non-member states). > > > > So we need to start again. In doing so, there are four essential > characteristics around which the new organisation should be designed. > > > > First, it must be voluntary; both in its participation, and in the force > that its recommendations carry. This should be a familiar structure for > those versed in Internet governance, as the IETF operates in that way. > Indeed, the IETF was the model which I originally had in mind when I > approached the doctoral research that became my book. Similar proposals for > a policy body based on the IETF (such as ISOC's old Internet Societal Task > Force (ISTF)), go back even further, and others continue to be made today. > However, the structure I eventually proposed for a multi-stakeholder > Internet governance network differs from the IETF in several important > respects, the most critical of which are reflected in the remaining > criteria below. > > > > Second, if the new organisation is not UN-linked (which apart from being > unacceptable to many Internet users, is also now political unlikely, since > the CSTD declined to convene a multi-stakeholder working group to consider > enhanced cooperation mechanisms), there is no reason why this organisation > should not be established by the community. In short, Internet users have > to take the initiative of proposing this positive agenda for Internet > governance, just as they did in defeating SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Indeed, at > this point, if civil society does not take the lead (perhaps supported by a > handful of progressive companies or governments), it probably won't happen > at all. > > > > Third, there needs to be a defined role for governments within the new > organisation. Is it possible for governments to participate within a > private governance organisation? Of course; think of ICANN itself, in which > governments participate through the Government Advisory Council (GAC). > Indeed, the idea of a private organisation carrying out a global public > good, with the participation and support of governments through the > international system, goes back centuries, at least to the 1863 formation > of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Whilst the participation > of governments may still alarm some Internet activists, this is why the > second principle, that the organisation be established by the community, is > so critical. > > > > Fourth, in line with the Tunis Agenda of WSIS which highlights the > distinct contributions that stakeholders have to offer in their respective > roles, the structure of the organisation should reflect this, through an > executive body with formal representation of governmental, private sector > and technical community, and civil society members. Though the IGF's > structure does not do so, that of other multi-stakeholder networks do – > good examples include the Forest Stewardship Council and the Fair Labor > Association. In practical terms, this should mean that decisions of the > body, such as the adoption of principles, should be made by rough consensus > within each class of membership, as well as overall. > > > > A further corollary is that each stakeholder group will retain a measure > of independence within its own sphere of competence. Thus for example, > governmental members might reserve the capacity to take principles adopted > by the organisation, and convert them into an intergovernmental agreement. > This is much like the Council of Europe did in 2011, with the adoption of a > Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance > principles, that had been developed through a multi-stakeholder process. > (On the other hand, there are good reasons to limit the development of > norms by the new organisation to high-level, soft law instruments, in order > to avoid distractive wrangling over treaty language.) > > > > Such an organisation, possessing a structure that recognises the role of > governments but does not privilege them over other stakeholders, and a > constitution that provides for the accountability and transparency that the > Internet community expects, would distinguish the new organisation both > from the ineffective IGF, and from the unrepresentative ACTA and TPPA > negotiations. It would fill the vacuum in Internet governance that WGIG > observed in 2005, and bring to an end the ongoing wrangling over enhanced > cooperation that continues to this day. Best of all, if this new > organisation is established by the community, then we don't need to wait > for anyone's approval to to it: we can start right now. > > > > Watch this space. > > > > > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > 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 > > > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 4 11:53:39 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:53:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B107503@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B107503@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <47CBC160-9B21-4579-B605-B4F8F93F4B1C@cafonso.ca> Wow, be proud, Europeans! :) sent from a dumbphone On 04/07/2012, at 12:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Happy Independence Day! > From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 9:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! > > 4th of July > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mike Rispoli, Access Now > Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM > Subject: BREAKING NEWS: ACTA goes down! > > > > Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now please consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. > > > This just in -- the European Parliament, in a landslide vote, has voted down ACTA, with 478 votes against and only 39 in favor! As one of the 380,000 people who called on MEPs to vote "No," congratulations to you and all the other organizations, communities, and Members of Parliament who have fought to defeat this dangerous international treaty. > > This morning, we met MEPs at the door as they entered Parliament for the vote (see picture to the right), giving them one last reminder to vote "No." Media and MEPs nodded to the strength of our global movement for digital freedom -- we got their attention, and your signature on our petition helped make this happen! > > Though today’s win is significant for our global movement for digital freedom, those that supported ACTA will undoubtedly dust themselves off and begin a new push to protect their business models at any cost. What we need to do now is focus on reforming these broken copyright and patent regimes and promote a culture that is conducive to creativity, free expression and an open internet. > > We can only do this with your help. Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now we invite you to consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. > > The defeat of ACTA means there is one less agreement pushing ISPs to surveil and police users in the name of copyright. Without ACTA, countries can now engage in much needed reform to intellectual property laws. The people have spoken - international trade agreements that touch on our rights and our internet must be negotiated democratically and not behind closed doors. When it comes to internet policy, we will not be messed with! > > While artists should absolutely be compensated for their work, it should never come at the expense of our freedom of expression, access to the internet, and privacy online. So now is the time to look beyond ACTA and work towards a new framework that recognizes our online practices rather than destroying them, an intellectual property framework fit for the digital age. > > This global fight is not over and our small team is working hard to advocate for users like you. None of this work would be possible without the support of Access members -- that's why contributions, even in small amounts, go a long way in allowing us to plan what to take on next. > > We can't stop now -- not with serious national and international battles on the horizon. Help us take on the next big fight, no matter where it is, by contributing to Access today. > > Thanks for your support, > Mike Rispoli > The Access Campaign Team > > Access is an international NGO that promotes open access to the internet as a means to free, full and safe participation in society and the realization of human rights. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access. To reply, please email info at accessnow.org. To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Wed Jul 4 12:25:46 2012 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 18:25:46 +0200 Subject: R: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! In-Reply-To: <47CBC160-9B21-4579-B605-B4F8F93F4B1C@cafonso.ca> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B107503@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <47CBC160-9B21-4579-B605-B4F8F93F4B1C@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: being an example for the internet rights Fiorello ________________________________ Da: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Per conto di Carlos A. Afonso Inviato: mercoledì 4 luglio 2012 17.54 A: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; LouisPouzin (well) Oggetto: Re: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! Wow, be proud, Europeans! :) sent from a dumbphone On 04/07/2012, at 12:11, Lee W McKnight wrote: Happy Independence Day! ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] BREAKING NEWS: ACTA shot down! 4th of July ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Rispoli, Access Now Date: Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:08 PM Subject: BREAKING NEWS: ACTA goes down! Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now please consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. This just in -- the European Parliament, in a landslide vote, has voted down ACTA, with 478 votes against and only 39 in favor! As one of the 380,000 people who called on MEPs to vote "No," congratulations to you and all the other organizations, communities, and Members of Parliament who have fought to defeat this dangerous international treaty. This morning, we met MEPs at the door as they entered Parliament for the vote (see picture to the right), giving them one last reminder to vote "No." Media and MEPs nodded to the strength of our global movement for digital freedom -- we got their attention, and your signature on our petition helped make this happen! Though today's win is significant for our global movement for digital freedom, those that supported ACTA will undoubtedly dust themselves off and begin a new push to protect their business models at any cost. What we need to do now is focus on reforming these broken copyright and patent regimes and promote a culture that is conducive to creativity, free expression and an open internet. We can only do this with your help. Your voice helped bring down ACTA -- now we invite you to consider helping us sustain this momentum! Click here to chip in to make sure we see more of these victories in the future -- even a small amount helps. The defeat of ACTA means there is one less agreement pushing ISPs to surveil and police users in the name of copyright. Without ACTA, countries can now engage in much needed reform to intellectual property laws. The people have spoken - international trade agreements that touch on our rights and our internet must be negotiated democratically and not behind closed doors. When it comes to internet policy, we will not be messed with! While artists should absolutely be compensated for their work, it should never come at the expense of our freedom of expression, access to the internet, and privacy online. So now is the time to look beyond ACTA and work towards a new framework that recognizes our online practices rather than destroying them, an intellectual property framework fit for the digital age. This global fight is not over and our small team is working hard to advocate for users like you. None of this work would be possible without the support of Access members -- that's why contributions, even in small amounts, go a long way in allowing us to plan what to take on next. We can't stop now -- not with serious national and international battles on the horizon. Help us take on the next big fight, no matter where it is, by contributing to Access today. Thanks for your support, Mike Rispoli The Access Campaign Team ________________________________ Access is an international NGO that promotes open access to the internet as a means to free, full and safe participation in society and the realization of human rights. To help protect the internet around the world, you can donate to Access . To reply, please email info at accessnow.org. To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.accessnow.org/unsubscribe ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Jul 4 11:35:36 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:35:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Stewards Program - Deadline / July 15th Message-ID: <94F716D4-D722-426D-A5AE-2512FB2842FD@privaterra.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 00:13:04 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:13:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FF51450.5030606@ciroap.org> On 04/07/12 22:30, Avri Doria wrote: > I think it is too early to give up on the IGF. As I have argued elsewhere, its locus of control is shifting from the UN initiation to the input of multiple national and regional IGF-like multi-stakehoder meetings. Not there yet, but it is becoming a national and regionally motivated organization. > > I see a twofold problem with starting from scratch yet again : > > - need to attract the governments > - need to go through all the early growing pain nonsense that the IGF is just starting to come out of. > > But there is lot I agree with in the content of your blog. I just think we need to get the IGF to do it and not focus on yet another new organization. It mightn't be a case of either/or. It might be that we could do the groundwork to establish a structure for the development of policy recommendations (outside of the MAG, which would veto it before it got off the ground), and then once we have something viable with a few major stakeholders behind it, saying to the IGF "Hey, look at what we've got here - do you want it?". -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 5 11:12:50 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:12:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This is true, Roland, but who defined the laws? All regulators (in democratic countries) operate under defined legal authority, and when they exceed it or ignore that they get slapped down by the courts. Therefore, there is an important distinction between legislation or regulation and enforcement of laws or regulations. > -----Original Message----- > In the UK there are various laws which are enforced by regulators, > including much to do with privacy, telecoms and consumer rights. > > http://regulatorylaw.co.uk/List_of_regulatory_bodies.html > > LEA =/= Police. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 5 11:18:51 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 11:18:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This is true, Roland, but who defined the laws? All regulators (in democratic countries) operate under defined legal authority, and when they exceed it or ignore that they get slapped down by the courts. Therefore, there is an important distinction between legislation or regulation and enforcement of laws or regulations. but in a MSH environment ALL are welcome to participate. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 5 11:24:05 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:24:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483414EA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> ,<4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483414EA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Carlos I am just catching up on this dialogue. I think you raise excellent and important questions; do not be thrown off the track by Pisanty. (Alejandro, I'd encourage you to try to address substantive issues and not scold people on what sessions they should have attended, as if you were a schoolteacher. Especially when there is no evidence that those sessions actually addressed the issues raised or provided the opportunities for broad dialogue that exist here on this list). There is a structural tension between the growing need for global governance of CIRs and the regional/territorial nature of the RIRs, just as there is a tension between Internet governance and territorial nation-states. The ICANN board, with a few exceptions such as Narten and Plzak, are almost completely ignorant of numbering issues, and the ICANN staff is trying very hard to avoid them as much as possible, partly out of deference to the RIRs, partly out of a feeling that they have too many other things to do. But this is not a viable situation long term; many of the issues regarding addresses - and not just the ones you mention - will have to be resolved globally. Either the RIRs will expand and improve their global policy making capabilities, or ICANN will have to step up, or if either of those options fails the ball will - as a matter of fact, not preference - fall into the US government's court. Just as Whois for DNS became a major, global issue because the trademark interests wanted it to be one, so Whois for IPv6 will become a global issue if and when a powerful interest group decides it is. Curran's pretense that this is a local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only is either a dishonest smokescreen or (what is more likely) yet another indication of how woefully out of touch with global governance politics some people in the tech community are. The US FBI has - as everyone knows - led global policy efforts to deal with Whois, registrar accreditation agreement, and copyright issues. If they are making noise about IPv6 and Whois you can bloody well bet it is a global policy issue and you are absolutely right that civil society needs to be thinking about how it can participate in a legitimate open policy dialogue and not allow the discussion to be dominated by one side (LEA or business or government, whatever). Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org Our workshop on global governance of IPv4 address transfers was approved last week; in this area the RIR community is becoming reasonably cooperative and aware of the need for > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; John Curran > Subject: RE: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN > > Carlos, > > not only John Curran is in the same city as you are now. Also the FBI agents > mentioned in the article that has caused you such consternation. Did you > attend any of the sessions on the interactions between law enforcement > and the unique-value coordinated identifiers of the Internet? What can you > tell us about them? > > I am very sad that you see as "canine defense" what is only probing whether > you have used the opportunities to find about things in depth and then help > translate and transfer the information and understanding to others. > > A diplomat for your country told me many years ago that he used to do > something similar to the type of questions you have posed in this list in the > WSIS and IGF process as a matter of policy: "to keep kicking the Americans in > the shins", knowing that it is of little effect but keeps everybody busy with > you. I hope you are keen to differentiate from that, right? > > I look forward to the enlightenment that will surely be extended to us > through the lens of your research in depth and your experience. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de junio de 2012 15:23 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > Asunto: Re: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN > > John, thanks for you kind patience on this. I quote this article from > CNet (which quotes you, incidentally), as example of the issues worrying > the community for its technical and political implications: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could- > shield-criminals-from-police/?part=rss&tag=feed&subj > > My question or concern presented to the board, to rephrase and simplify > it, is: at which level should this issue be handled by our international > governance structure for names, numbers and protocols? Should be Icann, > since it is the organization recognized worldwide as the governance body > for these? Or should Icann ignore it (as Thomas Marten implied) and let > the problems, once present, be handled on an ad-hoc basis by one of its > associated/supporting entities? Or even just wait and see? > > If this is not clear, let me know. And I appreciate your mediation > efforts on this. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > On 06/27/2012 02:17 PM, John Curran wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 5:31 PM, c.a. wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the detailed info, John. However, predating does not mean > they are not under Icann oversight - as the very core mission of Icann states. > In any case, I continue to believe Icann is the proper space for directing my > question, malgré the lack of response - btw, I have copied my concern to > Lacnic's policy discussion lists at almost tlhe same time I directed the question > to the Icann board. > > > > c.a. - > > > > Could you clearly state your concern so that I may insure that it > > is addressed at some point during this week's ICANN meeting? > > > > As best I can determine, you are concerned that US LEA is providing > > input into the policy development process? If that is not correct, > > can you suggest a better phrasing? > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > > John Curran > > President and CEO > > ARIN > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 5 11:25:32 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:25:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDEB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Of course. But informal MSH environments, or MSH environments with poor institutional design, are dangerously susceptible to manipulation, such that some SHs are more equal than others. > -----Original Message----- > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > This is true, Roland, but who defined the laws? All regulators (in democratic > countries) operate under defined legal authority, and when they exceed it or > ignore that they get slapped down by the courts. Therefore, there is an > important distinction between legislation or regulation and enforcement of > laws or regulations. > > > but in a MSH environment ALL are welcome to participate. > > > -- > 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 5 11:46:51 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:46:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483414EA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > There is a structural tension between the growing need for global governance of CIRs and the regional/territorial nature of the RIRs, just as there is a tension between Internet governance and territorial nation-states. The ICANN board, with a few exceptions such as Narten and Plzak, are almost completely ignorant of numbering issues, and the ICANN staff is trying very hard to avoid them as much as possible, partly out of deference to the RIRs, partly out of a feeling that they have too many other things to do. But this is not a viable situation long term; many of the issues regarding addresses - and not just the ones you mention - will have to be resolved globally. Either the RIRs will expand and improve their global policy making capabilities, or ICANN will have to step up, or if either of those options fails the ball will - as a matter of fact, not preference - fall into the US government's court. Milton - Any and all suggestions on how the RIRs (ARIN in particular) should "improve their global policy making capabilities" are welcome. Feel free to contact me directly, or more formally through ARIN's suggestion process at > Just as Whois for DNS became a major, global issue because the trademark interests wanted it to be one, so Whois for IPv6 will become a global issue if and when a powerful interest group decides it is. Curran's pretense that this is a local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only is either a dishonest smokescreen or (what is more likely) yet another indication of how woefully out of touch with global governance politics some people in the tech community are. The US FBI has - as everyone knows - led global policy efforts to deal with Whois, registrar accreditation agreement, and copyright issues. If they are making noise about IPv6 and Whois you can bloody well bet it is a global policy issue and you are absolutely right that civil society needs to be thinking about how it can participate in a legitimate open policy dialogue and not allow the discussion to be dominated by one side (LEA or business or government, whatever). I did not refer to it as a "local matter pertaining to the US LEAs only", and would appreciate you either accurately summarize my remarks, or even better, quote me directly rather than mischaracterizing my remarks for your latest cause célèbre. To be clear, I asked "Can you elaborate how US LEA expressing concerns on their ability to perform their job when IPv6 is deployed (due to potentially less number registry updates) somehow is an ICANN Internet governance matter? Are not the Regional Internet Registries to accept such input in their forums and allow discussion of the concerns?" The point of the question was to note that policy discussions take place at a regional level and that law enforcement had a right of participation just as all others I very much believe that civil society needs to be thinking about matters such as accuracy of the public Whois, and should be actively involved in the policy discussion. As these discussions are taking place in regional forums, it would be likely be most effective to participate there alongside LEA, business and government in such discussions. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Jul 5 12:01:22 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:01:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF! 8D8F0D3D483414EA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> Message-ID: staying out of MM issue completely if possible. On 5 Jul 2012, at 11:46, John Curran wrote: > To be clear, I asked "Can you elaborate how US LEA expressing concerns on > their ability to perform their job when IPv6 is deployed (due to potentially > less number registry updates) somehow is an ICANN Internet governance matter? > Are not the Regional Internet Registries to accept such input in their forums > and allow discussion of the concerns?" > > The point of the question was to note that policy discussions take place at > a regional level and that law enforcement had a right of participation just > as all others I very much believe that civil society needs to be thinking > about matters such as accuracy of the public Whois, and should be actively > involved in the policy discussion. As these discussions are taking place > in regional forums, it would be likely be most effective to participate > there alongside LEA, business and government in such discussions. A point we are trying to make in ICANN that should perhaps be made to the RIR level. When you talk to LEA you get only half of a government's story. You also have to talk to the Privacy Officers and Data Retentions officers too. I suggest that whenever one talks to an LEA that LEA office should be handcuffed to a government Policy Officer so you know you are getting the complete story. As for Civil society participation, yes we should participate more, but whenever it is civil society on privacy vs. LEA on security, LEA trumps the privacy nuts in the eyes of decision makers. Hence my insistence that you need to work hard to get the privacy officials on the room every time you talk to LEA. Just a thought avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 5 12:05:10 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:05:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FF03987.1080901@cafonso.ca> <4FF239AF.2090601@cafonso.ca> <4FF2D537.6090700@cafonso.ca> <83792001-2CA2-485A-94AD-E7B725D13FB9@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDC8 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 15:12:50 on Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >This is true, Roland, but who defined the laws? All regulators (in >democratic countries) operate under defined legal authority, and when >they exceed it or ignore that they get slapped down by the courts. >Therefore, there is an important distinction between legislation or >regulation and enforcement of laws or regulations. I'm sure it depends on the country and the crime. In the UK many laws are expressed as codes-of-practice written by, or case-law decided by, various regulators. Although they are only interpreting what Parliament gave them powers to do, albeit sometimes quite sweepingly. In the USA I get the impression that this is how much of the FCC's work is conducted, for example. >> -----Original Message----- >> In the UK there are various laws which are enforced by regulators, >> including much to do with privacy, telecoms and consumer rights. >> >> http://regulatorylaw.co.uk/List_of_regulatory_bodies.html >> >> LEA =/= Police. >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 5 12:13:13 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:13:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > As for Civil society participation, yes we should participate more, but whenever it is civil society on privacy vs. LEA on security, LEA trumps the privacy nuts in the eyes of decision makers. Hence my insistence that you need to work hard to get the privacy officials on the room every time you talk to LEA. > > Just a thought It's a good thought... If I see a policy proposal actually submitted in this area, I will insure that this list is notified so that those interested can get involved. Even comments made via remote participation can awaken folks to policy aspects and implications of which they are otherwise unaware. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 5 12:18:07 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:18:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> Message-ID: In message , at 12:01:22 on Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes > you need to work hard to get the privacy officials on the room every >time you talk to LEA. And that can be difficult when the privacy officials don't have a bottomless travel budget. I think it's possible, and desirable, to involve all players in the discussion, but without necessarily having them in the same room most of the time. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Jul 5 12:54:37 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:54:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370C A01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> Message-ID: <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> On Jul 5, 2012, at 6:13 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> As for Civil society participation, yes we should participate more, but whenever it is civil society on privacy vs. LEA on security, LEA trumps the privacy nuts in the eyes of decision makers. Hence my insistence that you need to work hard to get the privacy officials on the room every time you talk to LEA. >> >> Just a thought > > It's a good thought... If I see a policy proposal actually submitted in this > area, I will insure that this list is notified so that those interested can > get involved. Even comments made via remote participation can awaken folks > to policy aspects and implications of which they are otherwise unaware. Actually, Avri pressed this in NCSG's meeting with the Board in Prague, and there seemed to be agreement that asking the LEAs whether they'd checked with their respective governments' privacy people when formulating proposals was a reasonable first step. Sort of a concrete proposal for you, John. CS inputs into actual governance processes can matter… Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea00 at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 13:25:38 2012 From: andrea00 at gmail.com (andrea) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:25:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council adopts Resolution upholding the principle of freedom of expression and information on the Internet Message-ID: In case you missed it, just to frame the whole UN taking over Internet freedom buzz.. here you can find the draft in the 6 UN languages http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/sdpage_e.aspx?b=10&se=128&t=4 Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 5 14:31:52 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:31:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370C A01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:54 PM, William Drake wrote: > Actually, Avri pressed this in NCSG's meeting with the Board in Prague, and there seemed to be agreement that asking the LEAs whether they'd checked with their respective governments' privacy people when formulating proposals was a reasonable first step. Sort of a concrete proposal for you, John. Bill - As of yet, there is no policy proposal in this area at ARIN, and hence no discussion of same. If there is a proposal made, I have no problem asking for clear attribution regarding comments made, since it is a material question when dealing with entities (like LEA) which are only a single component of a government. Until there are actual proposals for change to policy, there is nothing to be done in ARIN with respect to the policy development process. In the meantime, I imagine that "privacy and use of Internet resource databases" would make an interesting topic for the likes of an Internet policy forum such as IGF. Best, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Jul 5 14:43:21 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:43:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! C A01ECD21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> Hi, Just to be clear, who determines what information in the RIR database is visible, and by whom it is visible? Who determines issues about WHOIS and the data retained and displayed by the IP Address WHOIS? Are privacy proxy arrangement available for WHOIS? Who makes the determinations on whether these are to be allowed and under what basis they could operate? Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. thanks avri On 5 Jul 2012, at 14:31, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:54 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Actually, Avri pressed this in NCSG's meeting with the Board in Prague, and there seemed to be agreement that asking the LEAs whether they'd checked with their respective governments' privacy people when formulating proposals was a reasonable first step. Sort of a concrete proposal for you, John. > > Bill - > > As of yet, there is no policy proposal in this area at ARIN, and hence > no discussion of same. If there is a proposal made, I have no problem > asking for clear attribution regarding comments made, since it is a > material question when dealing with entities (like LEA) which are only > a single component of a government. > > Until there are actual proposals for change to policy, there is > nothing to be done in ARIN with respect to the policy development > process. In the meantime, I imagine that "privacy and use of Internet > resource databases" would make an interesting topic for the likes > of an Internet policy forum such as IGF. > > Best, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Jul 5 14:48:37 2012 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:48:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Supporters] Job Announcement-CDT Brussels Message-ID: >Sender: >To: >From: Leslie Harris >Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:06:17 -0400 > >Dear Colleagues: > >As many of you know, CDT has been taking steps over the last year to >increase our engagement with EU policymakers on key issues. Since >the beginning of 2012, with the assistance of terrific consultants, >we have been actively engaged on the Data Protection Regulation, the >Notice and Action proceeding and more . > >Now we are taking the next step and hiring a Brussels Director. The >job description is attached. >I would appreciate it if you would circulate it to colleagues in >Europe and ask that they do the same. > >With your help, we are confident that we will find the right person >to lead our Brussels office. > >Thank you and warm regards. > >Leslie Harris > >Leslie Harris, President/ CEO >Center for Democracy & Technology >1634 I St. N.W. 11th Floor >Washington, DC 20006 >(P)202-637-9800 x113 >(D) 202-4078813 >(F) 202-6370968 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: %CDT EU Director 2012-Final.pdf Type: application/applefile Size: 140 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CDT EU Director 2012-Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 84116 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 jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 5 15:21:37 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:21:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> Message-ID: <7670F954-0890-4AED-95C5-B7CC72EB01AA@corp.arin.net> On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just to be clear, who determines what information in the RIR database is visible, and by whom it is visible? > Who determines issues about WHOIS and the data retained and displayed by the IP Address WHOIS? > Are privacy proxy arrangement available for WHOIS? Who makes the determinations on whether these are to be allowed and under what basis they could operate? > > Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. These are determined by each RIR, although some of these are topics of specific policies set by the community in that region (for example, there are residential privacy policies, bulk access to Whois data policy, and privitizing POC data policies in the ARIN region) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Jul 5 16:02:24 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:02:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <7670F954-0890-4AED-95C5-B7CC72EB01AA@corp.arin.net> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-! D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <7670F954-0890-4AED-95C5-B7CC72EB01AA@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <00244C74-67C2-4CB4-95E1-D5AAF55A4E13@ella.com> Hi, On 5 Jul 2012, at 15:21, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just to be clear, who determines what information in the RIR database is visible, and by whom it is visible? >> Who determines issues about WHOIS and the data retained and displayed by the IP Address WHOIS? >> Are privacy proxy arrangement available for WHOIS? Who makes the determinations on whether these are to be allowed and under what basis they could operate? >> >> Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. > > These are determined by each RIR, although some of these are topics of > specific policies set by the community in that region (for example, there > are residential privacy policies, bulk access to Whois data policy, and > privitizing POC data policies in the ARIN region) In which case we have a class of issues for which any policy requires the participation of privacy experts and officials. In fact it would probably be useful to have the existing policies reviewed for any issues in privacy or data retention. thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Thu Jul 5 16:12:43 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:12:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <00244C74-67C2-4CB4-95E1-D5AAF55A4E13@ella.com> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <7670F954-0890-4AED-95C5-B7CC72EB01AA@corp.arin.net> <00244C74-67C2-4CB4-95E1-D5AAF55A4E13@ella.com> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 5 Jul 2012, at 15:21, John Curran wrote: > >> ... >> These are determined by each RIR, although some of these are topics of >> specific policies set by the community in that region (for example, there >> are residential privacy policies, bulk access to Whois data policy, and >> privitizing POC data policies in the ARIN region) > > In which case we have a class of issues for which any policy requires the participation of privacy experts and officials. > > In fact it would probably be useful to have the existing policies reviewed for any issues in privacy or data retention. ARIN's policies are here: Section 3 is directory services in general, although <4.2.3.7.3> on Residential Subscribers also be be germane. If you need any assistance in reading these or formatting policy proposals to change, just let me know. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jul 5 17:05:39 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:05:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! C A01EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> Message-ID: <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> Avri, On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. The difference between the RIRs and the ASO is? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 5 17:36:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:36:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> References: <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350 at virtualized.org>, at 14:05:39 on Thu, 5 Jul 2012, David Conrad writes >The difference between the RIRs and the ASO is? The NRO. (I'll get my coat). http://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/the-nro-number-council -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Jul 5 18:01:38 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:01:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! ! C A01EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On 5 Jul 2012, at 17:05, David Conrad wrote: > Avri, > > On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. > > The difference between the RIRs and the ASO is? > Singular regional action versus collective action? 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 drc at virtualized.org Thu Jul 5 18:47:32 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:47:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! ! C A01 EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> On Jul 5, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Are these issue in the RIRs or does the ASO in ICANN handle all of that. >> The difference between the RIRs and the ASO is? > Singular regional action versus collective action? Sorry, misread your question. Yes, right now those questions are answered in each RIR (semi-) independently. As far as I know, the ASO (= the NRO) only gets invoked if all the the RIRs agree on a particular "global policy" related to addressing that applies to IANA. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Jul 5 19:22:27 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:22:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! ! ! C A01 EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> Thanks for that reply which brings up another question I have On 5 Jul 2012, at 18:47, David Conrad wrote: > As far as I know, the ASO (= the NRO) Does '=' mean: - the same organization - ASO is an ICANN supporting organization that passes on all that the NRO (RIR 'collective') does for Board (and GAC?) blessing. Sort of an intermediary. - mostly overlap becasue it is the same people but separate organization that could have a separate agenda if is was wished. Thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Jul 5 22:38:02 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:38:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! ! ! C A 01 EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> Message-ID: <47079882-13BB-4888-9508-B52E53499FE6@virtualized.org> Avri, On Jul 5, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 5 Jul 2012, at 18:47, David Conrad wrote: >> As far as I know, the ASO (= the NRO) > > Does '=' mean: > > - the same organization > - ASO is an ICANN supporting organization that passes on all that the NRO (RIR 'collective') does for Board (and GAC?) blessing. Sort of an intermediary. > - mostly overlap becasue it is the same people but separate organization that could have a separate agenda if is was wished. I'd say #2 with the caveat that it only passes on things (to the Board) that are defined within the respective RIR's PDPs as 'global policies' (an extremely small and well defined subset of what the RIRs do, basically telling IANA what to do). I believe what Milton is raising is that there are a set of concerns (e.g., consistency among RIRs registrant data or transparency in the address trading market) that would probably be useful from a global perspective but for which the RIRs have little incentive to come up with a unified approach. However, I'm sure I got this wrong and John and/or Milton will correct me momentarily :-) Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jul 6 01:43:06 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:43:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FF67AEA.4070200@ciroap.org> On 03/07/12 12:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom > that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. > > It's not very good. And following on from that, here's the neocon version: http://declarationofinternetfreedom.org/ I didn't think much of the last one, but these guys didn't even *try*. For them (bafflingly, including groups from the UK and Italy), the Internet's freedom of expression derives from the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and the right to privacy from the Fourth Amendment! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Fri Jul 6 02:02:53 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:02:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council Resolution on Human Rights on the Internet In-Reply-To: <4FF67AEA.4070200@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <4FF67AEA.4070200@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FF67F8D.5000605@uni-graz.at> Dear all, after lots of declaration on Internet rights (and freedom), we now have a resolution as well. On Thursday, the Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution entitled "The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet ". It is brief and largely uncontroversial, but falls short of spelling out more clearly the obligations of states vis-a-vis the Internet and the limits to their attempts to limit Internet freedoms. Here we go: [The Human Rights Council] 1./Affirms /that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 2./Recognizes /the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; 3./Calls upon**/all States to promote and facilitate access to the Internet and international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communications facilities in all countries; 4./Encourages /special procedures to take these issues into account within their existing mandates, as applicable;** 5./Decides /to continue its consideration of the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, on the Internet and in other technologies, as well as of how the Internet can be an important tool for development and for exercising human rights, in accordance with its programme of work. I've written a brief entry on the resolution (http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.co.at/) and have suggested that we need to put a bit more flesh on the bones of the Council's commitment (You can find the resolution here, but it's still the draft version: https://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/G1214710.pdf). That's another task for the pre-IGF phase, I fear. Kind regards Matthias Am 06.07.2012 07:43, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm: > On 03/07/12 12:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom >> that is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. >> >> It's not very good. > > And following on from that, here's the neocon version: > > http://declarationofinternetfreedom.org/ > > I didn't think much of the last one, but these guys didn't even > *try*. For them (bafflingly, including groups from the UK and Italy), > the Internet's freedom of expression derives from the First Amendment > to the US Constitution, and the right to privacy from the Fourth > Amendment! > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer* > 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 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 6 05:13:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:13:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> References: <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1 at ella.com>, at 19:22:27 on Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes >On 5 Jul 2012, at 18:47, David Conrad wrote: > >> As far as I know, the ASO (= the NRO) > >Does '=' mean: > >- the same organization >- ASO is an ICANN supporting organization that passes on all that the NRO (RIR 'collective') does for Board (and GAC?) blessing. Sort of an >intermediary. >- mostly overlap becasue it is the same people but separate organization that could have a separate agenda if is was wished. In Prague the NRO gave a presentation to the GAC about RPKI. That's an example of an initiative where it makes sense for the RIRs to have a common approach. From a people point of view, the Address Council (which really ought to be called the ASO Council to match the other SO's) is performed by the NRO Number Council. The Number Council has two persons each voted from five stakeholder groups (to use GNSO Terminology), viz the membership of the five RIRs. It also has one person each appointed from five Nomcoms (to use ICANN terminology), which are the five RIR's Executive Boards. On the other hand, when "The NRO" turns up at a meeting, it's usually a synonym for the NRO Executive Council (the five RIR CEOs). The secretariat for the ASO and NRO rotates amongst the RIR secretariats. -- 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 meta.sj at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 05:38:33 2012 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 05:38:33 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4FF3B4DE.1010100@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <4FF3B4DE.1010100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello, As someone who contributed to the collaborative drafting of the document that started this thread (and a lurker on this list), I think input from IGC members, particularly to revise future iterations of such docs, would be most welcome. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I added this to the links page at http://igcaucus.org/links and added > years. > A good start. There are likely dozens more from specific countries. For instance, this US "digital bill of rights" proposed by 2 Congressmen in 2012: http://keepthewebopen.com/ **** > It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on > Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so.**** > > ** ** > > Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit > the effects of such efforts. > > Indeed. Part of the problem is that whereas there are strong global > action networks on issues like IP and the environment, in IG we have only > the IGC, and it is invisible to (or at least ignored by) large parts of the > Internet activist community. > Right. I don't know how many people *prefer* to work in parallel; it's often just a byproduct of haste and different social circles. Self-consciously so in this case. While the first version of the declaration was put out in time for July 4th (yes, a nod to US-centric publicity), another iteration is hoped for, with more involvement and more explicit recognition of any parallel or ancestral efforts, by September. > in my view, it is far too US centric and fails to build on and recognize the > significant work done by many key experts and organizations involved in the > WSIS and IGF processes over the last 9-10 years (if not longer) Any specifics you can offer, in terms of work, experts, or organizations, would be helpful. Sam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 6 09:53:20 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:53:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang and all, as the coordinated of QuoVadis IGF, I Adam open to such suggestions. Any specific names or points to add to the current WS proposal ? Thanks Izumi 2012年7月3日火曜日 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de: > To avoid duplication or working in parallel I propose to organize the Quo > Vadis workshop as a joint event IGC & DC. > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at ) > [mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at ] > Gesendet: Di 03.07.2012 14:46 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Jeremy Malcolm > Betreff: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom > > > > What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more > declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of > 2010 by a group of NGOs and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of > 2012 by Praxis think tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. > > > > It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on > Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. > > > > Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit > the effects of such efforts. > > > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > > Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > > Institute for International Law and International Relations > > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > > A-8010 Graz > > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org ] Im Auftrag von > Jeremy Malcolm > Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juli 2012 06:57 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom > > > > Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that is > going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. > > It's not very good. > > For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the > discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if > we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have > the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is > or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. > > For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to > have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and > entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its > launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't > heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital > rights group has decided not to sign on. > > Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear > emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or > non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short > document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' > actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd > include. > > All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign > onto it? > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > 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 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice < > http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meta.sj at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 12:22:42 2012 From: meta.sj at gmail.com (Samuel Klein) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:22:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Jeremy Malcolm writes: < at least they have issued a declaration of principles (even if a > sub-standard one), which the IGC has not done despite talking > about doing it since last IGF. Please focus on the principles themselves and not "they" who wrote them. There is no implied ownership of this set of principles. To the contrary, like around half of the similar statements of principles over the past year, it is meant to spur public discussion and improvement. Some curation and coordination is needed to bring interested parties and views together, but I think a significant majority could in time settle on a consensus document. Hopefully including the major groups that care about and study internet governance. > we need to make sure that we don't continue to allow the current > Internet governance debates to be monopolised by such popular > movements, which are well-intentioned but often rather uninformed > and demographically narrow. Many groups remain isolated by their sense of identity and otherness. Including those that aim to help and represent everyone -- like 'popular' groups and 'civil society' groups (both terms which, in their simplest form, cover most of society). I hope we [the largest-frame community of Internet users] can keep this from being an 'us v. them' debate for a dozen different social circles, each of which feels it is the only unbiased representative slice of society. I also hope we can separate underlying questions about internet freedom and its value in society, from Internet Governance. The former is more philosophical and less tied to near-term current-day implementation decisions. > we have long been talking about making a contribution, but are yet to > actually get around to doing so [in] > > 1. the development of a civil society statement of principles on IG > and a broader civil society network to subscribe to this ... < > the ground is moving under the IGC's feet. At least three other groups > (Access, and two others I'm not sure if I can mention publicly) are trying to > take leadership to link NGOs together for purposes of agreeing on principles > and/or mobilising against bad laws. This is something that the IGC itself > should be doing, and indeed had committed to do last year. I must say, the language you use above makes me uncomfortable, and feels... sub-optimal. An ideal coalition or network won't be "led" or "owned" by one particular group; it will draw from many and be defined by its members. I hope people from all of these groups, and from "popular" groups that you feel are currently apart from civil society (including the 'net activists who are currently engaged in work like broadcasting the existence of recent declarations), will be invited to upcoming IGC/IGF discussions on the topic. And vice-versa. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > While I'm in strong agreement with the view that "now is the time to > just do it", I would say that pretty much by definition, Enhanced > Cooperation can't be done without active involvement of at least some > governments. > That seems like a pretty lacking definition. Today we have a variety of examples of how large-scale grassroots and civic pressure can define a framework for cooperation and drive government involvement, rather than waiting for government inovlvement before something can happen. This is one reason why the IGF might benefit from more involvement from people who have been part of popular Internet movements in recent years. It is good to have a credible and attractive invitation to governments to cooperate, where possible, but not the only way forward. > Every bit of civil society visibilty in this area is good since it > reduces the temptations for governments to turn to ITU and/or > plurilateral purely intergovernmental negotiations (like ACTA) for > their perceived enhanced cooperation needs. > Yes. Though again, governments are not always the most important groups that need to cooperate or to define the terms of such cooperation. The act of cooperating well will amplify and broadcast the work of those who have learned to cooperate; and will by definition make their work and standards more influential than those of groups that remain isolated. Regards, Sam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jul 6 12:24:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <47079882-13BB-4888-9508-B52E53499FE6@virtualized.org> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370! ! ! ! C A 01 EC D21ABDB7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> <47079882-13BB-4888-9508-B52E53499FE6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21AF99B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> >I believe what Milton is raising is that there are a set of concerns (e.g., > consistency among RIRs registrant data or transparency in the address trading market) > that would probably be useful from a global perspective but for which the RIRs have > little incentive to come up with a unified approach. However, I'm sure I got this wrong and John >and/or Milton will correct me momentarily :-) I think you got it right. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.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 jcurran at arin.net Fri Jul 6 13:02:44 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 17:02:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <47079882-13BB-4888-9508-B52E53499FE6@virtualized.org> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <"6DCAB3 E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046"@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> <52A1030D-6F07-4E0F-A8A1-D8BE34C7C749@arin.net> <39DB7E1E-EF50-4B2E-B2E8-7725C860B795@uzh.ch> <6414A5FC-4410-4A58-BE57-AF75619EFD71@ella.com> <56A0748E-C3DD-43DA-93F9-E11C63EA6350@virtualized.org> <9B3E82F2-85C4-4524-BCF4-4EC0CF0EEB86@virtualized.org> <26E60B81-4DD1-4E3D-AF4E-918D17918FE1@ella.com> <47079882-13BB-4888-9508-B52E53499FE6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:38 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jul 5, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 5 Jul 2012, at 18:47, David Conrad wrote: >>> As far as I know, the ASO (= the NRO) >> >> Does '=' mean: >> >> - the same organization >> - ASO is an ICANN supporting organization that passes on all that the NRO (RIR 'collective') does for Board (and GAC?) blessing. Sort of an intermediary. >> - mostly overlap becasue it is the same people but separate organization that could have a separate agenda if is was wished. > > I'd say #2 with the caveat that it only passes on things (to the Board) that are defined within the respective RIR's PDPs as 'global policies' (an extremely small and well defined subset of what the RIRs do, basically telling IANA what to do). > > However, I'm sure I got this wrong and John and/or Milton will correct me momentarily :-) No need for any correction - you've got it right. I will add some detail for those who want it for reference purposes. The RIRs actually coordinate many activities via the NRO (for example, contributing financial support to the IGF, arranging for an informational booth on Number resources to be present and staffed at a given IG event, or working together to produce a single summary report on number resource statistics) These are predominantly informational and outreach coordination tasks, but are not ASO activities per se, just coordination RIR activities. With respect to ICANN, the NRO shall "fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO (Address Supporting Organization)", and this means that the functions called for in ICANN's Bylaws for the Address Supporting Organization (e.g. nominating two seats on the ICANN Board, and review of global number resource policies for recommendation to the ICANN Board) are performed by the NRO acting as the ASO. The NRO has a council (with three participants from each region; two elected & one appointed) which handles most of those tasks; Louie Lee is the present Chair of the ASO Address Council and quite visible to those attending ICANN meetings. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 6 19:10:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 01:10:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: (message from Samuel Klein on Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:22:42 -0400) References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120706231016.B89367834@quill.bollow.ch> Samuel Klein wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > While I'm in strong agreement with the view that "now is the time to > > just do it", I would say that pretty much by definition, Enhanced > > Cooperation can't be done without active involvement of at least some > > governments. > > That seems like a pretty lacking definition. Lacking or not, this notion "Enhanced Cooperation" that we're talking about is from the Tunis Agenda [1] (an international soft law instrument, i.e. it's a text that a lot of governments have negotiated and explicitly agreed to, even if it isn't considered international law), where it is introduced in para 69 as follows: "We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues." [1] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html I'm absolutely not opposed to enhancing cooperation among civil society actors etc (although some are reasonably well-coordinated already, for example ACTA was defeated in the European Parliament not by chance but after a lot of hard, well-coordinated work), but the problem that I'm right now seeking to address (an Internet-Draft with a specific proposal will probably be out next week or so) is a specific need for "Enhanced Cooperation" that specifically governments have, IMO quite legitimately, expressed. > Today we have a variety of examples of how large-scale grassroots > and civic pressure can define a framework for cooperation and drive > government involvement, rather than waiting for government > inovlvement before something can happen. Do you have any examples where the result is successful cooperation between governments, with the governments cooperating in ways that are informed by truly open multistakeholder dialogue? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 23:48:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 20:48:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: <20120706231016.B89367834@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> <20120706231016.B89367834@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear All, I apologise for the delayed response as I have been travelling and am back in Fiji. Frankly, my take on Jeremy's suggestions and all other contributions is that clearly there is a need to improve our engagement. My personal views (not as co-coordinator) are as follows:- a) identify areas (foras, public policy areas) especially that we would like to strategically focus on; b) utilize the research that Norbert Bollow has already done in identifying public policy areas that require strategic input from us (noting various organizations that are already engaging so that we avoid duplication); c)have a Team who are mandated to work together with regional IGFs and national IGFs to develop a bottom-up approach to clear Internet Governance principles; d)create better rapport amongst other civil society groups; f)improve our information management systems regarding key public policy areas on the website; e)encourage outreach and capacity building. I find that with all our varied expertise, combined experiences, diverse perspectives we can work together to make things count. This would mean the development of a Strategic Development Plan and a Team of volunteers to work on charting a way forward, if I had my way, this would be done but since this is a group that is not driven by the coordinators but by consensus of the IGC, it requires that we reach consensus on the way forward. It is good to see that Wolfgang Kleinwachter has volunteered to drive the development of Internet Governance principles. As for the discussion on the applicability of human rights to layers of the internet, this will make an interesting debate and discussion. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jul 7 00:37:31 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 12:37:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] Follow-up on principles, pre-event, ECTF, WG: need for focus by IGC In-Reply-To: References: <4FF286D7.8020205@ciroap.org> <20120704063528.B61B57834@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9E93B4DA-4A19-4003-AB14-3A1C11010203@ciroap.org> On 07/07/2012, at 12:22 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Some curation and coordination is needed to bring interested parties and views together, but I think a significant majority could in time settle on a consensus document. Hopefully including the major groups that care about and study internet governance. Yes I think so too. > Many groups remain isolated by their sense of identity and otherness. Including those that aim to help and represent everyone -- like 'popular' groups and 'civil society' groups (both terms which, in their simplest form, cover most of society). > > I hope we [the largest-frame community of Internet users] can keep this from being an 'us v. them' debate for a dozen different social circles, each of which feels it is the only unbiased representative slice of society. What worries me now is that with Ron Paul jumping in, along with other libertarian and conservative groups (like small government and tax reform groups) who previously had no involvement in these issues (much less than that of the groups behind the first Declaration of Internet Freedom), they may have no interest in going beyond the polarised position of "no government regulation of the Internet", which the rest of us moved past in 2003 or earlier. Even if we had another 9 years to wait, I don't think that would be long enough for them. This is fast turning into a black and white ideological battle. People on the other side are flinging around words like "Marxist" to describe your people. It is getting ugly, and I don't think they want to talk. > I also hope we can separate underlying questions about internet freedom and its value in society, from Internet Governance. The former is more philosophical and less tied to near-term current-day implementation decisions. I don't think that they can be separated. Talking about Internet freedom in the abstract is not useful. It drills down into at least five quite separate principles (in your formulation, and I don't think it could get much more succinct than that), and each of those in turn drills down into a number of separate issues (for example "privacy" brings up data collection, data protection, anonymity...), and each of those have particular contexts in which they have to be addressed, and voila, that is Internet governance. > I must say, the language you use above makes me uncomfortable, and feels... sub-optimal. An ideal coalition or network won't be "led" or "owned" by one particular group; it will draw from many and be defined by its members. They can form a global public sphere on Internet governance (or Internet freedom if you prefer) issues, and that is useful in itself. But in order to actually affect policy, these disparate contributions have to be linked back into the sphere of institutional politics at some point. It is absolutely fantastic that SOPA, PIPA and ACTA were defeated, but not everything bad from government will be able to be spun as a direct attack on freedom, that can mobilise grassroots people in that way. Indeed, governments and big business will be a lot more subtle from now on. This will require a different method of engagement than head-on, brute force protest (as effective as that was in those cases). > I hope people from all of these groups, and from "popular" groups that you feel are currently apart from civil society (including the 'net activists who are currently engaged in work like broadcasting the existence of recent declarations), will be invited to upcoming IGC/IGF discussions on the topic. And vice-versa. The good news is, you are all invited to the IGF! The bad news is, it is in Azerbaijan. But please do get as many people involved through remote participation as you can. +1 to Norbert's reply on the Enhanced Cooperation parts. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 7 14:26:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 06:26:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Message-ID: Dear All, Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. The Draft Statement reads as follows:- The *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. *Ends* ------------------------------ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Aye > Shaila > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Izumi AIZU ; > * To: * ; Ginger Paque ; > * Cc: * ; > * Subject: * Re: [governance] news from Baku > * Sent: * Sun, Jul 1, 2012 12:26:07 AM > > Aye, and Sala would you please prepare the draft? > > izumi > > > 2012/6/24 Ginger Paque > >> Aye >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >>> To: governance ; Narine Khachatryan < >>> ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> >>> Cc: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>> Sent: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 3:50 am >>> Subject: Re: [governance] news from Baku >>> >>> I propose that we as Civil Society issue a Statement. All in favour, >>> say AYE and those not in favour saÿ NAY. >>> >>> Feel free to give reasons if you so wish. >>> >>> On 6/22/12, Narine Khachatryan wrote: >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > Recently the Azerbaijani parliament restricted the public access to >>> > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of >>> > Azerbaijani corporations. Justification is to protect the privacy of Azeri >>> > president and his family. Interesting. Henceforth, the general public >>> > would be denied such information, since it “contradicts the national >>> > interests of Azerbaijan". >>> > >>> > Azerbaijan: Parliament Throws Veil of Secrecy over Business Sector >>> > >>> > http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65534 >>> > June 13, 2012 - 12:00pm, by Shahin >>> > Abbasov >>> > >>> > >>> > - Azerbaijan >>> > - EurasiaNet's Weekly >>> > Digest >>> > >>> > - Azeri Economy >>> > - Azeri Politics >>> > >>> > Recent legislative efforts in Azerbaijan to protect the privacy of >>> > President Ilham Aliyev and his family are coming at the expense of >>> > investors, both foreign and domestic. >>> > >>> > The Azerbaijani parliament voted June 12 to restrict public access to >>> > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of >>> > Azerbaijani corporations. In addition, legislators granted President Aliyev >>> > and his wife, First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, lifetime immunity from criminal >>> > prosecution. >>> > >>> > The immunity provision for the Aliyevs was not unexpected: the proposal had >>> > been under consideration for a year. But the corporate secrecy amendment >>> > was added to parliament’s agenda only after the conclusion of the May >>> > 22-26 Eurovision >>> > Song Contest . >>> > >>> > The pop-music festival, which brought unprecedented international attention >>> > to Azerbaijan, was preceded by a series of articles by RFE/RL investigative >>> > journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who highlighted alleged conflicts of >>> > interest involving mining rights granted to a gold-mining >>> > companyowned >>> > by President Aliyev’s two daughters, Leyla and Arzu, and Eurovision >>> > construction work by a company linked >>> > to the two Aliyevas and First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, the head of >>> > Eurovision’s organizing committee. [Editor’s Note: Islamyilova also >>> > contributes to EurasiaNet]. >>> > >>> > By law, officials’ relatives may own businesses, but members of parliament >>> > – the First Lady sits in the legislature for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan >>> > Party – cannot. >>> > >>> > In public statements, government officials have asserted that such >>> > investigative coverage violated the presidential family’s right to >>> > privacy. >>> > The articles followed earlier pieces that examined the Aliyeva daughters’ >>> > investments in telecommunications, airport operations and banking. >>> > >>> > Under the terms of the secrecy amendment, obtaining information about such >>> > investments now could prove more difficult. The government will release >>> > information about the registrations of for-profit companies only upon >>> > request by a court, law-enforcement agency or Central Bank monitors >>> > investigating suspected money-laundering or the financing of terrorist >>> > groups. >>> > >>> > Journalists and the general public would be denied such information if its >>> > distribution “contradicts the national interests of Azerbaijan in >>> > political, economic and monetary policy, the defense of public order, the >>> > health and moral values of the people and harms the commercial and other >>> > interests of individuals.” >>> > >>> > In addition, corporate records will be provided only if the petitioner has >>> > the consent of those individuals named in the data. >>> > >>> > Information about registered Azerbaijani companies’ ownership and >>> > shareholders previously had been publicly available on the Ministry of >>> > Taxes’ website. The ministry was required to provide registry details to >>> > citizens within a week of receipt of a written request. >>> > >>> > All but four of the 103 members of parliament present voted in favor of the >>> > restrictions. Another two MPs did not vote; First Lady Aliyeva was not >>> > present. >>> > >>> > President Aliyev is expected to sign the secrecy and immunity amendments >>> > into law this week. >>> > >>> > Government officials have not commented on the amendments, but one senior >>> > Yeni Azerbaijani Party MP who backed the new restrictions claimed the >>> > measure does not limit Azerbaijanis’ right to information. In June 6 >>> > comments to the Azeri-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, >>> > Ali Huseynly, chair of the parliament’s Committee on Legal Policy and State >>> > Building, claimed that the amendment “clarifies the frameworks for the >>> > right to receive information.” The lack of such “frameworks” often leads to >>> > “violations,” Huseynly added. >>> > >>> > Parliamentarian Fazail Agamaly, a member of the pro-government Ana Vatan >>> > (Motherland) Party, asserted that “[j]ournalists should be satisfied with >>> > the information about a company provided by its owner.” >>> > >>> > “Otherwise, the release of some information could create financial problems >>> > for businesses,” Agamaly reasoned. >>> > >>> > Civil society and media-rights watchdogs counter that the secrecy >>> > amendment, indeed, is designed to prevent problems – namely, for Aliyev’s >>> > friends and family members. >>> > >>> > Lawyer Intigam Aliyev [no relation to the presidential family], director of >>> > the Legal Education Society, a Baku non-governmental organization that >>> > monitors legislation implementation, asserted the amendment is “a response >>> > of corrupt authorities to a number of articles in local and foreign media >>> > about the large business assets of the ruling family in Azerbaijan and >>> > oligarchs.” >>> > >>> > Opposition MP Igbal Aghazade, a member of the Umid (Hope) Party, who voted >>> > against the amendment, said the measure only “serves the idea of keeping >>> > information about the commercial interests of a group of high-ranking >>> > government officials a secret.” >>> > >>> > Restricting the availability of company data from the public can harm the >>> > country’s ability to fight corruption, noted Media Rights Institute >>> > Director Rashid Hajily. In 2011, Azerbaijan ranked 143rd out of 183 >>> > countries in a corruption index compiled by the international watchdog >>> > group Transparency International. >>> > >>> > "Citizens will be deprived of public [oversight] over officials’ links with >>> > businesses," Hajily said. "It creates a strong foundation for the >>> > proliferation of conflicts of interest.” >>> > >>> > Meanwhile, activists who tried to >>> > highlight >>> > Azerbaijan’s spotty civil-rights record during the Eurovision contest say >>> > that they will fight back against the “business secrets” amendment. “We >>> > will campaign both locally and internationally, will demand in public >>> > debates the annulment of this legislation, will raise the issue at related >>> > international conferences and in interviews with foreign media,” pledged >>> > Rasul Jafarov, head of the Human Rights Club, a Baku-based non-governmental >>> > organization. >>> > Editor's note: >>> > Shahin Abbasov is a freelance reporter based in Baku. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear members of the list >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> latest news from Baku published by IPS >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> After the Curtain Call, a Crackdown Begins >>> >> By Shahla Sultanova >>> >> Republish >>> >> | >>> >> >>> >> BAKU, Jun 19 2012 (IPS) - As the attention of the world faded away from >>> >> Azerbaijan after the recent Eurovision song contest, police began >>> >> targeting >>> >> some young activists and a journalist involved in protests here last >>> >> month. >>> >> >>> >> The Eurovision song contest was as much a moment of enjoyment for music >>> >> lovers as it was a fierce contest between the Azerbaijani government and >>> >> its opponents to highlight the ‘reality’ of a politically turbulent >>> >> country; with the former presenting a respectable image to the West, and >>> >> the latter struggling to expose human rights violations and government >>> >> suppression of basic civil liberties. >>> >> >>> >> More than ten protest rallies were organised on the eve of the contest. >>> >> >>> >> Human rights defenders and activists had anticipated a post-Eurovision >>> >> crackdown, when the spotlight had turned away from the country and the >>> >> government would be free to punish those who had dared to educate the >>> >> world >>> >> about the grave situation on the ground in Azerbaijan. >>> >> >>> >> On Jun. 6, the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), a >>> >> media >>> >> rights watchdog, was notified by the Sabail District Police Office that a >>> >> photo journalist named Mehman Huseynov, an IRFS member, had allegedly >>> >> insulted police officers during a protest on May 21. >>> >> >>> >> The district police office has now opened a criminal case against >>> >> Huseynov >>> >> under Article 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic. >>> >> If >>> >> found guilty, Huseynov will face five years in prison. >>> >> >>> >> Huseynov (23), said the accusation is related to his work, which for many >>> >> years has entailed photographing events that depict government >>> >> wrongdoings >>> >> and disseminating them via social media. >>> >> >>> >> Several months prior to Eurovision, Huseynov actively joined the Sing for >>> >> Democracy Campaign. >>> >> >>> >> “I was media coordinator within the campaign. My photos and videos were >>> >> shared in international media. Of course, they showed the reality of >>> >> Azerbaijan, (which) is unfortunately not very positive. That is why I am >>> >> a >>> >> target now,” he told IPS. >>> >> >>> >> Over 30 human rights organisations joined Sing for Democracy in an effort >>> >> to pressure organisers of the contest to demand greater democracy in >>> >> Azerbaijan. >>> >> >>> >> The campaign called for the release of political prisoners, freedom of >>> >> expression and assembly, protection of property rights and the >>> >> independence >>> >> of courts. >>> >> >>> >> IRFS head Emin Huseynov, Mehman Huseynov’s older brother, links the >>> >> accusation against the latter with his profession. “It is the start of >>> >> the >>> >> post-Eurovision crackdown. It is revenge against the IRFS for actively >>> >> informing foreign journalists and international media on the eve of >>> >> Eurovision about many harassment cases in Azerbaijan. Besides, during >>> >> seven >>> >> years of work, we investigated many cases of pressure on journalists. >>> >> Now, >>> >> they want to punish us.” >>> >> >>> >> Before the song contest, Leyla Yunus, director of the Institute of Peace >>> >> and Democracy, had often warned of a serious backlash after the >>> >> Eurovision-fuelled tourist season died down. She believes Mehman Huseynov >>> >> is the first victim of that campaign. >>> >> >>> >> “Mehman’s work has been shared and discussed recently. Besides, he is >>> >> working for IRFS, which is critical of the government. By arresting him >>> >> they want to (blacklist) a good photo journalist and put pressure on his >>> >> brother Emin.” >>> >> >>> >> Various other activists were also brought into police stations this week. >>> >> >>> >> Beyim Hasanli, a member of the opposition Popular Front Party’s Youth >>> >> Committee was called in to the Sebayil district police station on Jun. 9. >>> >> >>> >> She was asked how she got information about the May 21 protest action and >>> >> why she attended it. Hasanli was also asked if she ever noticed a media >>> >> representative being rude to the police. >>> >> Related IPS Articles >>> >> >>> >> - Sex and Censorship in >>> >> Azerbaijan >>> >> - Arab Spring at Azerbaijan’s >>> >> Door >>> >> - Azerbaijan and Israel: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My >>> >> Friend >>> >> >>> >> “After that they showed me a video in which I was trying to help a woman >>> >> dragged by police. There were many journalists, including Mehman, who >>> >> tried >>> >> to film it but police would not let them do so. It also showed Mehman >>> >> (swearing) when he was not allowed to film.” >>> >> >>> >> After that Hasanli was asked to write a report on what she saw on video. >>> >> >>> >> A week ago, her father was called in to the Absheron district Main Police >>> >> Office and asked to sign a statement promising to be responsible for his >>> >> daughter’s activities. >>> >> >>> >> Hasanli claims all this was done to intimidate and discourage her from >>> >> being an activist. >>> >> >>> >> Natig Adilov, a journalist with the opposition Azadlig newspaper and >>> >> activist with the Popular Front Party, was called in to the Sabirabad >>> >> police station on Jun. 13, where he was “advised” to get involved in >>> >> better >>> >> activities than participating in protest rallies. >>> >> >>> >> “They do it to scare people so that they stop their public activity. For >>> >> autocratic regimes like this, intimidation is very important to manage >>> >> their (stronghold). It is also related to me being very active during >>> >> Eurovision,” said Adilov. >>> >> >>> >> Ehsan Zahidov, spokesman for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, said the >>> >> recent slew of interrogations against activists and journalists has >>> >> nothing >>> >> to do with their activity during the Eurovision song contest or their >>> >> political background but pertained to them violating “rules”. >>> >> >>> >> “To advise people (on how to behave) is part of the job of police >>> >> officers. They do not care about the political activity of citizens. >>> >> Natig >>> >> Adilov was just advised not to violate public order. That is it,” he told >>> >> IPS. >>> >> >>> >> For Arzu Abdullayeva, human rights defender and co-chair of the Helsinki >>> >> Citizens Assembly, recent pressure on journalists is not limited to >>> >> Eurovision activity. >>> >> >>> >> “Activists have always been a threat to the Azerbaijani government. By >>> >> (putting) pressure on activists, journalists, by arresting them, the >>> >> government (lets potential dissidents) know that they will have the same >>> >> future.” >>> >> >>> >> Human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights >>> >> Watch condemned the accusation against Huseynov. >>> >> >>> >> The authorities should “drop the bogus charges against Huseynov and >>> >> ensure >>> >> that he can exercise his right to freedom of expression”, Human Rights >>> >> Watch said in its recent report. >>> >> >>> >> Amnesty International’s statement mentions that Huseynov’s arrest comes >>> >> amid a worrying rise in police harassment of young activists who >>> >> participated in protests around Eurovision. >>> >> >>> >> According to Max Tucker, Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner, >>> >> Mehman’s arrest signals the start of the widely predicted government >>> >> crackdown on those they consider responsible for negative publicity >>> >> during >>> >> Eurovision. >>> >> >>> >> (END) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Media Education Center >>> > Yerevan, Armenia >>> > >>> > www.mediaeducation.am >>> > www.safe.am >>> > www.immasin.am >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Jul 7 22:53:47 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 11:53:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks, Sala, for your work below. The web-link has been changed to the following URl due to some technical problem. http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73 Please use this for making your comments and suggestions. thanks, izumi 2012/7/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear All, > > Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald > Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, > Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International > lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and > no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. > > The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can > comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments > as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to > gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. > > The Draft Statement reads as follows:- > > The *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* wishes to express its > grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil > society in Azerbaijan. > > We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, > Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of > observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and > protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like > decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without > restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political > perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. > > > Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights > Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government > of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United > Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where > together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the > protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. > > > This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where > diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are > robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. > > > We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions > provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which > Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. > > > We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review > its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of > expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is > encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic > society. > > > *Ends* > ------------------------------ > > [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan > > [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 > > [3] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > >> Aye >> Shaila >> >> ------------------------------ >> * From: * Izumi AIZU ; >> * To: * ; Ginger Paque ; >> >> * Cc: * ; >> * Subject: * Re: [governance] news from Baku >> * Sent: * Sun, Jul 1, 2012 12:26:07 AM >> >> Aye, and Sala would you please prepare the draft? >> >> izumi >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Sun Jul 8 08:08:33 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:08:33 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1341749313.80974.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Great job! Just to make a small correction. The name of my organisation is I-VISSION INTERNATIONAl not International I-VISSION. I know the email shows International I-VISSION. It was a technical error made when creating the account. Thanks for your understanding Regards,   ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : Izumi AIZU À : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; coordinators at igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Dimanche 8 juillet 2012 3h53 Objet : [governance] Re: Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Many thanks, Sala, for your work below. The web-link has been changed to the following URl due to some technical problem. http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73  Please use this for making your comments and suggestions. thanks, izumi 2012/7/8 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Dear All, > > >Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe,  Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. > > >The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61  This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. > > >The Draft Statement reads as follows:- > > >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. >We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. > > >Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. > > >This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. > > >We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. > > >We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. > > >Ends > >________________________________ > >[1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan >[2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 >[3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement >  > > > > >Kind Regards, > > >Sala > >On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > >Aye >>Shaila >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> From: Izumi AIZU ; >>To: ; Ginger Paque ; >>Cc: ; >> >>Subject: Re: [governance] news from Baku >>Sent: Sun, Jul 1, 2012 12:26:07 AM >> >> >> >>Aye, and Sala would you please prepare the draft? >> >> >>izumi >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 08:17:19 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 00:17:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear IGC, Hoping that you saw that the link has changed to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73 as Izumi pointed out and was due to a bug in the system which has now been resolved. Kind Regards, On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald > Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, > Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International > lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and > no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. > > The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can > comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments > as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to > gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. > > The Draft Statement reads as follows:- > > The *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* wishes to express its > grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil > society in Azerbaijan. > > We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, > Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of > observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and > protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like > decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without > restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political > perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. > > > Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights > Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government > of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United > Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where > together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the > protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. > > > This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where > diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are > robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. > > > We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions > provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which > Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. > > > We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review > its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of > expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is > encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic > society. > > > *Ends* > ------------------------------ > > [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan > > [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 > > [3] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > >> Aye >> Shaila >> >> ------------------------------ >> * From: * Izumi AIZU ; >> * To: * ; Ginger Paque ; >> >> * Cc: * ; >> * Subject: * Re: [governance] news from Baku >> * Sent: * Sun, Jul 1, 2012 12:26:07 AM >> >> Aye, and Sala would you please prepare the draft? >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2012/6/24 Ginger Paque >> >>> Aye >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >>>> To: governance ; Narine Khachatryan < >>>> ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> >>>> Cc: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>>> Sent: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 3:50 am >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] news from Baku >>>> >>>> I propose that we as Civil Society issue a Statement. All in favour, >>>> say AYE and those not in favour saÿ NAY. >>>> >>>> Feel free to give reasons if you so wish. >>>> >>>> On 6/22/12, Narine Khachatryan wrote: >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > Recently the Azerbaijani parliament restricted the public access to >>>> > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of >>>> > Azerbaijani corporations. Justification is to protect the privacy of Azeri >>>> > president and his family. Interesting. Henceforth, the general public >>>> > would be denied such information, since it “contradicts the national >>>> > interests of Azerbaijan". >>>> > >>>> > Azerbaijan: Parliament Throws Veil of Secrecy over Business Sector >>>> > >>>> > http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65534 >>>> > June 13, 2012 - 12:00pm, by Shahin >>>> > Abbasov >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > - Azerbaijan >>>> > - EurasiaNet's Weekly >>>> > Digest >>>> > >>>> > - Azeri Economy >>>> > - Azeri Politics >>>> > >>>> > Recent legislative efforts in Azerbaijan to protect the privacy of >>>> > President Ilham Aliyev and his family are coming at the expense of >>>> > investors, both foreign and domestic. >>>> > >>>> > The Azerbaijani parliament voted June 12 to restrict public access to >>>> > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of >>>> > Azerbaijani corporations. In addition, legislators granted President Aliyev >>>> > and his wife, First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, lifetime immunity from criminal >>>> > prosecution. >>>> > >>>> > The immunity provision for the Aliyevs was not unexpected: the proposal had >>>> > been under consideration for a year. But the corporate secrecy amendment >>>> > was added to parliament’s agenda only after the conclusion of the May >>>> > 22-26 Eurovision >>>> > Song Contest . >>>> > >>>> > The pop-music festival, which brought unprecedented international attention >>>> > to Azerbaijan, was preceded by a series of articles by RFE/RL investigative >>>> > journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who highlighted alleged conflicts of >>>> > interest involving mining rights granted to a gold-mining >>>> > companyowned >>>> > by President Aliyev’s two daughters, Leyla and Arzu, and Eurovision >>>> > construction work by a company linked >>>> > to the two Aliyevas and First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, the head of >>>> > Eurovision’s organizing committee. [Editor’s Note: Islamyilova also >>>> > contributes to EurasiaNet]. >>>> > >>>> > By law, officials’ relatives may own businesses, but members of parliament >>>> > – the First Lady sits in the legislature for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan >>>> > Party – cannot. >>>> > >>>> > In public statements, government officials have asserted that such >>>> > investigative coverage violated the presidential family’s right to >>>> > privacy. >>>> > The articles followed earlier pieces that examined the Aliyeva daughters’ >>>> > investments in telecommunications, airport operations and banking. >>>> > >>>> > Under the terms of the secrecy amendment, obtaining information about such >>>> > investments now could prove more difficult. The government will release >>>> > information about the registrations of for-profit companies only upon >>>> > request by a court, law-enforcement agency or Central Bank monitors >>>> > investigating suspected money-laundering or the financing of terrorist >>>> > groups. >>>> > >>>> > Journalists and the general public would be denied such information if its >>>> > distribution “contradicts the national interests of Azerbaijan in >>>> > political, economic and monetary policy, the defense of public order, the >>>> > health and moral values of the people and harms the commercial and other >>>> > interests of individuals.” >>>> > >>>> > In addition, corporate records will be provided only if the petitioner has >>>> > the consent of those individuals named in the data. >>>> > >>>> > Information about registered Azerbaijani companies’ ownership and >>>> > shareholders previously had been publicly available on the Ministry of >>>> > Taxes’ website. The ministry was required to provide registry details to >>>> > citizens within a week of receipt of a written request. >>>> > >>>> > All but four of the 103 members of parliament present voted in favor of the >>>> > restrictions. Another two MPs did not vote; First Lady Aliyeva was not >>>> > present. >>>> > >>>> > President Aliyev is expected to sign the secrecy and immunity amendments >>>> > into law this week. >>>> > >>>> > Government officials have not commented on the amendments, but one senior >>>> > Yeni Azerbaijani Party MP who backed the new restrictions claimed the >>>> > measure does not limit Azerbaijanis’ right to information. In June 6 >>>> > comments to the Azeri-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, >>>> > Ali Huseynly, chair of the parliament’s Committee on Legal Policy and State >>>> > Building, claimed that the amendment “clarifies the frameworks for the >>>> > right to receive information.” The lack of such “frameworks” often leads to >>>> > “violations,” Huseynly added. >>>> > >>>> > Parliamentarian Fazail Agamaly, a member of the pro-government Ana Vatan >>>> > (Motherland) Party, asserted that “[j]ournalists should be satisfied with >>>> > the information about a company provided by its owner.” >>>> > >>>> > “Otherwise, the release of some information could create financial problems >>>> > for businesses,” Agamaly reasoned. >>>> > >>>> > Civil society and media-rights watchdogs counter that the secrecy >>>> > amendment, indeed, is designed to prevent problems – namely, for Aliyev’s >>>> > friends and family members. >>>> > >>>> > Lawyer Intigam Aliyev [no relation to the presidential family], director of >>>> > the Legal Education Society, a Baku non-governmental organization that >>>> > monitors legislation implementation, asserted the amendment is “a response >>>> > of corrupt authorities to a number of articles in local and foreign media >>>> > about the large business assets of the ruling family in Azerbaijan and >>>> > oligarchs.” >>>> > >>>> > Opposition MP Igbal Aghazade, a member of the Umid (Hope) Party, who voted >>>> > against the amendment, said the measure only “serves the idea of keeping >>>> > information about the commercial interests of a group of high-ranking >>>> > government officials a secret.” >>>> > >>>> > Restricting the availability of company data from the public can harm the >>>> > country’s ability to fight corruption, noted Media Rights Institute >>>> > Director Rashid Hajily. In 2011, Azerbaijan ranked 143rd out of 183 >>>> > countries in a corruption index compiled by the international watchdog >>>> > group Transparency International. >>>> > >>>> > "Citizens will be deprived of public [oversight] over officials’ links with >>>> > businesses," Hajily said. "It creates a strong foundation for the >>>> > proliferation of conflicts of interest.” >>>> > >>>> > Meanwhile, activists who tried to >>>> > highlight >>>> > Azerbaijan’s spotty civil-rights record during the Eurovision contest say >>>> > that they will fight back against the “business secrets” amendment. “We >>>> > will campaign both locally and internationally, will demand in public >>>> > debates the annulment of this legislation, will raise the issue at related >>>> > international conferences and in interviews with foreign media,” pledged >>>> > Rasul Jafarov, head of the Human Rights Club, a Baku-based non-governmental >>>> > organization. >>>> > Editor's note: >>>> > Shahin Abbasov is a freelance reporter based in Baku. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Dear members of the list >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> latest news from Baku published by IPS >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> After the Curtain Call, a Crackdown Begins >>>> >> By Shahla Sultanova >>>> >> Republish >>>> >> | >>>> >> >>>> >> BAKU, Jun 19 2012 (IPS) - As the attention of the world faded away from >>>> >> Azerbaijan after the recent Eurovision song contest, police began >>>> >> targeting >>>> >> some young activists and a journalist involved in protests here last >>>> >> month. >>>> >> >>>> >> The Eurovision song contest was as much a moment of enjoyment for music >>>> >> lovers as it was a fierce contest between the Azerbaijani government and >>>> >> its opponents to highlight the ‘reality’ of a politically turbulent >>>> >> country; with the former presenting a respectable image to the West, and >>>> >> the latter struggling to expose human rights violations and government >>>> >> suppression of basic civil liberties. >>>> >> >>>> >> More than ten protest rallies were organised on the eve of the contest. >>>> >> >>>> >> Human rights defenders and activists had anticipated a post-Eurovision >>>> >> crackdown, when the spotlight had turned away from the country and the >>>> >> government would be free to punish those who had dared to educate the >>>> >> world >>>> >> about the grave situation on the ground in Azerbaijan. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Jun. 6, the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), a >>>> >> media >>>> >> rights watchdog, was notified by the Sabail District Police Office that a >>>> >> photo journalist named Mehman Huseynov, an IRFS member, had allegedly >>>> >> insulted police officers during a protest on May 21. >>>> >> >>>> >> The district police office has now opened a criminal case against >>>> >> Huseynov >>>> >> under Article 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic. >>>> >> If >>>> >> found guilty, Huseynov will face five years in prison. >>>> >> >>>> >> Huseynov (23), said the accusation is related to his work, which for many >>>> >> years has entailed photographing events that depict government >>>> >> wrongdoings >>>> >> and disseminating them via social media. >>>> >> >>>> >> Several months prior to Eurovision, Huseynov actively joined the Sing for >>>> >> Democracy Campaign. >>>> >> >>>> >> “I was media coordinator within the campaign. My photos and videos were >>>> >> shared in international media. Of course, they showed the reality of >>>> >> Azerbaijan, (which) is unfortunately not very positive. That is why I am >>>> >> a >>>> >> target now,” he told IPS. >>>> >> >>>> >> Over 30 human rights organisations joined Sing for Democracy in an effort >>>> >> to pressure organisers of the contest to demand greater democracy in >>>> >> Azerbaijan. >>>> >> >>>> >> The campaign called for the release of political prisoners, freedom of >>>> >> expression and assembly, protection of property rights and the >>>> >> independence >>>> >> of courts. >>>> >> >>>> >> IRFS head Emin Huseynov, Mehman Huseynov’s older brother, links the >>>> >> accusation against the latter with his profession. “It is the start of >>>> >> the >>>> >> post-Eurovision crackdown. It is revenge against the IRFS for actively >>>> >> informing foreign journalists and international media on the eve of >>>> >> Eurovision about many harassment cases in Azerbaijan. Besides, during >>>> >> seven >>>> >> years of work, we investigated many cases of pressure on journalists. >>>> >> Now, >>>> >> they want to punish us.” >>>> >> >>>> >> Before the song contest, Leyla Yunus, director of the Institute of Peace >>>> >> and Democracy, had often warned of a serious backlash after the >>>> >> Eurovision-fuelled tourist season died down. She believes Mehman Huseynov >>>> >> is the first victim of that campaign. >>>> >> >>>> >> “Mehman’s work has been shared and discussed recently. Besides, he is >>>> >> working for IRFS, which is critical of the government. By arresting him >>>> >> they want to (blacklist) a good photo journalist and put pressure on his >>>> >> brother Emin.” >>>> >> >>>> >> Various other activists were also brought into police stations this week. >>>> >> >>>> >> Beyim Hasanli, a member of the opposition Popular Front Party’s Youth >>>> >> Committee was called in to the Sebayil district police station on Jun. 9. >>>> >> >>>> >> She was asked how she got information about the May 21 protest action and >>>> >> why she attended it. Hasanli was also asked if she ever noticed a media >>>> >> representative being rude to the police. >>>> >> Related IPS Articles >>>> >> >>>> >> - Sex and Censorship in >>>> >> Azerbaijan >>>> >> - Arab Spring at Azerbaijan’s >>>> >> Door >>>> >> - Azerbaijan and Israel: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My >>>> >> Friend >>>> >> >>>> >> “After that they showed me a video in which I was trying to help a woman >>>> >> dragged by police. There were many journalists, including Mehman, who >>>> >> tried >>>> >> to film it but police would not let them do so. It also showed Mehman >>>> >> (swearing) when he was not allowed to film.” >>>> >> >>>> >> After that Hasanli was asked to write a report on what she saw on video. >>>> >> >>>> >> A week ago, her father was called in to the Absheron district Main Police >>>> >> Office and asked to sign a statement promising to be responsible for his >>>> >> daughter’s activities. >>>> >> >>>> >> Hasanli claims all this was done to intimidate and discourage her from >>>> >> being an activist. >>>> >> >>>> >> Natig Adilov, a journalist with the opposition Azadlig newspaper and >>>> >> activist with the Popular Front Party, was called in to the Sabirabad >>>> >> police station on Jun. 13, where he was “advised” to get involved in >>>> >> better >>>> >> activities than participating in protest rallies. >>>> >> >>>> >> “They do it to scare people so that they stop their public activity. For >>>> >> autocratic regimes like this, intimidation is very important to manage >>>> >> their (stronghold). It is also related to me being very active during >>>> >> Eurovision,” said Adilov. >>>> >> >>>> >> Ehsan Zahidov, spokesman for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, said the >>>> >> recent slew of interrogations against activists and journalists has >>>> >> nothing >>>> >> to do with their activity during the Eurovision song contest or their >>>> >> political background but pertained to them violating “rules”. >>>> >> >>>> >> “To advise people (on how to behave) is part of the job of police >>>> >> officers. They do not care about the political activity of citizens. >>>> >> Natig >>>> >> Adilov was just advised not to violate public order. That is it,” he told >>>> >> IPS. >>>> >> >>>> >> For Arzu Abdullayeva, human rights defender and co-chair of the Helsinki >>>> >> Citizens Assembly, recent pressure on journalists is not limited to >>>> >> Eurovision activity. >>>> >> >>>> >> “Activists have always been a threat to the Azerbaijani government. By >>>> >> (putting) pressure on activists, journalists, by arresting them, the >>>> >> government (lets potential dissidents) know that they will have the same >>>> >> future.” >>>> >> >>>> >> Human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights >>>> >> Watch condemned the accusation against Huseynov. >>>> >> >>>> >> The authorities should “drop the bogus charges against Huseynov and >>>> >> ensure >>>> >> that he can exercise his right to freedom of expression”, Human Rights >>>> >> Watch said in its recent report. >>>> >> >>>> >> Amnesty International’s statement mentions that Huseynov’s arrest comes >>>> >> amid a worrying rise in police harassment of young activists who >>>> >> participated in protests around Eurovision. >>>> >> >>>> >> According to Max Tucker, Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner, >>>> >> Mehman’s arrest signals the start of the widely predicted government >>>> >> crackdown on those they consider responsible for negative publicity >>>> >> during >>>> >> Eurovision. >>>> >> >>>> >> (END) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >> >>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Media Education Center >>>> > Yerevan, Armenia >>>> > >>>> > www.mediaeducation.am >>>> > www.safe.am >>>> > www.immasin.am >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 8 09:11:13 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:41:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] WTPF May 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEFE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FF986F1.60800@itforchange.net> Dear Sergio, Thanks for sharing these documents, and for your overall efforts to open ITU documents to the general public. I read Brazil's inputs to the ITU SG's report with great interest. I have a specific question regarding it. In recommending to the ITU that it develops its own principles for Internet governance, and referring to the Brazilian principles in this regard, does Brazil not look at the ITU as the place to discuss and decide on global Internet related public policies, which is the definitional mandate given by Tunis agenda to the process of 'enhanced cooperation'? (Such is the work done by OECD's CCICP, e.g. developing as it did recently Principles for Internet Policy Making) If indeed Brazil (and the same question applies to other actors) is now so intent to let ITU's CWG-Internet be that space of 'enhanced cooperation', any discussion on whether a UN CIRP (minus any oversight role) for fulfilling the non CIR side of enhanced cooperation mandate becomes, to that extent, redundant. As I read WTFP documents, and I recommend others interested in the enhanced cooperation also to read them, it is apparent that the ITU's Council Working Group on International Internet Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) seems poised to take up the role that some envisaged for a UN CIRP like body (minus CIR oversight role). I know that CWG-Internet does not take binding decisions but has only recommendatory role to the ITU Council. However CIRP was supposed to have exactly an identical role vis a vis the UN GA, which would have to follow up to make actual implementable decisions etc. I see both ITU's CWG-Internet and UN CIRP having more or less identical advisory and facilitative roles to respective intergov decision making bodies. As one reads WTFP documents, one sees that the envisaged subject areas for the two entities (one existing and other proposed) is becoming increasingly similar. I pose this question especially because Brazil has reserved its judgement whether to support a UN CIRP like structure or not, and I am trying to explore the implications of this position. If in not supporting a CIRP like body one means just to let ITU's CWG-Internet take up more or less exactly that work, it raises some basic questions on the nature of reservations that Brazil, and others in civil society (including from Brazil), had or have vis a vis the CIRP proposal. Are the reservations really vis a vis multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency as has apparently looked to be the case? But how do these reservation hold in encouraging, or even allowing, ITU's CWG-Internet to take up more or less exactly the same role? The proposed design of UN CIRP is by far better on all these three counts (multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency) than ITU's CWG-Internet. Secondly, ITU is basically a body with a technical mandate, and corresponding mindset, which is evident in its processes and perspectives. It has no real background and expertise in social, cultural, economic and political issues. Internet, especially from civil society's point of view, should first be seen from social etc angles, and ITU, in my view, is not the best place to do so. Actors and institutions with generic social, cultural, economic and political backgrounds are better placed to deal with global IG and its wider public policy questions. These two sets of reasons is why I prefer a UN CIRP like body to ITU's CWG-Internet, and I am open to a discussion about the relative merits of the two. However, I can see now that the chances are that ITU's CWG-Internet would take over the proposed role of CIRP in the area of 'enhanced cooperation' as defined in the Tunis agenda. It may be a creeping acquisition but it is well planned and resourced. (Without going into the merits of it, Toure's team deserves appreciation for such a good plan and its impeccable execution.) ITU may even be able to bring more institutional resources and certainly greater institutional focus to the 'enhanced cooperation' function. Solid institutionalisation around this function is clearly well on its way. (With WSIS forum and all, also providing the otherwise missing social, economic, cultural political basis.) I bring up this point because I believe that in politics acts of omission are often as important as those of commission. Civil society may need to make a practical choice; Is ITU's CWG-Internet the right place for (non CIR oversight) 'enhanced cooperation' function or is a new more open and participative body with an initial socio-economic-cultural focus (like UN CIRP) a more appropriate body. In default of such a resolution, we may simply be agreeing to ITU CWG-Internet takinge up this role, which it clearly is taking up. Although, whether because it is being careful, at least in the beginning, or becuase ITU by its nature focuses more on technical issues, the list of issues proposed to be covered still are *relatively* technical even when the express intent is to jump headlong into the broad area of International Internet related public policies. Now, if CWG-Internet is indeed going to be the 'enhanced cooperation' space, which to me looks increasingly likely, I consider this narrow close-to-technical focus unfortunate. To illustrate what I mean, OECD's Committee on ICCP is right now discussing 'economics of personal data on the Internet', which is one of the most key and formative factors and features of what the Internet is and would be. I would like a globally democratic space to discuss this all important global public policy issue, but dont see a place to do so. Should this issue finally somehow fit CWG-Internet's agenda? While its mandate seems broad to include all global Internet public policy issues, I do not see ITU's CWG-Internet as the best place for this discussion. But if not here, then where? It is too important an issue not be addressed globally. I also find it unfortunate that there is not much will on this civil society like, I mean the IGC, to discuss enhanced cooperation issue beyond the CIR oversight issue (on which we had a very good discussion). As I have said, I find these larger global Internet related public policy issues as of rather greater significance that CIR oversight. However, there seems not much interest here to discuss this more important part of enhanced cooperation and its institutional gaps and requirements. We seem to be too CIRs fixated. parminder On Thursday 28 June 2012 10:36 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. wrote: > http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx > > For the time being, most WTPF-13 docs are open. > > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > Informal Experts Group > > In accordance with the Council Decision 562 > , the Secretary-General will > convene a balanced,* informal group of experts(IEG)* - who are active > in preparing for the Forum in their own country - to assist in the > successive stages of the preparatory process. The proposed deadline > for nominations for this group of experts is 15 May 2012. > The* schedule *for publishing the Secretary-General’s report to > WTPF-13 is included in Circular letter DM 12/1003. > > > A *progress report *on the fifth World Telecommunication/Information > and Communication Technology Policy Forum on Internet-related public > policy issues is included in Circular letter DM 12/1016 > . > > FIRST MEETING > *5 June 2012, ITU Headquarters, Geneva* > > * WTPF-IEG/1/1 : > Draft Agenda > > * WTPF-IEG/1/2 : > First draft of Secretary-General's report > > * WTPF-IEG/1/3 : > Comments from the Russian federation on the First draft of > Secretary-General's report. > > * WTPF-IEG/1/4 > :Comments from > Brazil on the First draft of Secretary-General's report > > * WTPF-IEG/1/5 > :Comments from > ARIN on the First draft of Secretary-General's report > > * WTPF-IEG/1/6 : > Comments from the United States on the First draft of > Secretary-General's report > > * WTPF-IEG/1/7 : > Comments from Internet Society (ISOC) > > * WTPF-IEG/1/8 : > Invitation letter > > * *WTPF-IEG/1/9* *: > **Preliminary Second Draft of the Secretary-General’s Report > > * > * WTPF-IEG/1/10 > :**List of > announced experts > > * WTPF-IEG/1/11 > :**Report of the > Chairman on the first meeting of the informal expert group (IEG) > > * WTPF-09/2 : Rules of > procedure of the fourth World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-09) > > > > 2012/6/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > > FYI > > wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 8 10:48:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:18:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report Message-ID: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> The Fukushima nuclear accident investigation report called the it a 'profoundly man-made disaster'. It put a lot of blame on regulatory capture. To quote a newspaper report ( http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3610518.ece ) The investigation commission's report " explains the disaster in terms of “regulatory capture” — that is, that the relationship between the regulators and the regulated was much too close, enabling the regulated to subject the regulators to undue pressure and influence." CIR management, especially vis a vis oversight issues, came to my mind as I read this. Those who have rooted for the current AoC based review mechanisms as *the* oversight system may especially take note. This report shows the need and the role of independent and outside oversight systems for critical technical infrastructures. parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jul 8 13:05:40 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:05:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: > CIR management, especially vis a vis oversight issues, came to my mind as I read this. Those who have rooted for the current AoC based review mechanisms as *the* oversight system may especially take note. This report shows the need and the role of independent and outside oversight systems for critical technical infrastructures. Parminder - Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also, are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the independence of same? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the preparation this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Jul 8 15:13:22 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:13:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Announcing the 11 Candidates for the Appeals Team Message-ID: <4FF9DBD2.40609@communisphere.com> IGC Members, I am delighted that 11 qualified members of the Civic Society Internet Governance Caucus have been nominated and agreed to serve on the Appeals Team: * Deirdre Williams * Imran Ahmed Shah * Ian Peter * Roland Perry * Ginger Paque * Judy Okite * Shaila Rao Mistry * Michael Gurstein * Gurumurthy Kasinathan * Raquel Gatto * Vincent Solomon Aliama The Nominating Committee would like to express the appreciation of the entire IGC to the nominees for stepping forward. While we all hope the activation of such an oversight mechanism will be unnecessary, preparation is vital to our continued success as an organization. At this point the Nominating Committee will be making the difficult choice of selecting 5 from these 11 qualified candidates. We expect to report back to you mid-month. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom voting members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 15:17:15 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (cveraq at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 19:17:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the 11 Candidates for the Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FF9DBD2.40609@communisphere.com> References: <4FF9DBD2.40609@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <1442004277-1341775040-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-980252677-@b16.c2.bise6.blackberry> Hope Raquel is elected. All excelent candidates btw. Carlos Vera -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:13:22 To: governance list IG Caucus Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Thomas Lowenhaupt Cc: Asif Kabani; Hakikur Rahman; Naveed haq; Shahid Akbar; Wilson Abigaba Subject: [governance] Announcing the 11 Candidates for the Appeals Team IGC Members, I am delighted that 11 qualified members of the Civic Society Internet Governance Caucus have been nominated and agreed to serve on the Appeals Team: * Deirdre Williams * Imran Ahmed Shah * Ian Peter * Roland Perry * Ginger Paque * Judy Okite * Shaila Rao Mistry * Michael Gurstein * Gurumurthy Kasinathan * Raquel Gatto * Vincent Solomon Aliama The Nominating Committee would like to express the appreciation of the entire IGC to the nominees for stepping forward. While we all hope the activation of such an oversight mechanism will be unnecessary, preparation is vital to our continued success as an organization. At this point the Nominating Committee will be making the difficult choice of selecting 5 from these 11 qualified candidates. We expect to report back to you mid-month. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom voting members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 17:17:19 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79627706.67085.1341782239496.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k32> Thanks Sala,   for this draft statement which comes in time. I support its content and general leanings.   Warm regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 07/07/12 20:26 > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : coordinators at igcaucus.org > Objet : [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] > > Dear All, > Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe,  Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. > The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61  This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. > The Draft Statement reads as follows:- > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. > Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. > This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. > We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. > We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. > Ends [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement   > > Kind Regards, > Sala > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, shaila mistry wrote: > Aye > Shaila > From: Izumi AIZU ; > To: ; Ginger Paque ; > Cc: ; > Subject: Re: [governance] news from Baku > Sent: Sun, Jul 1, 2012 12:26:07 AM > > Aye, and Sala would you please prepare the draft? > izumi > > 2012/6/24 Ginger Paque > Aye > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: governance ; Narine Khachatryan > Cc: Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Sent: Sat, Jun 23, 2012 3:50 am > Subject: Re: [governance] news from Baku > > I propose that we as Civil Society issue a Statement. All in favour, say AYE and those not in favour saÿ NAY. Feel free to give reasons if you so wish. On 6/22/12, Narine Khachatryan wrote: > Dear all, > > Recently the Azerbaijani parliament restricted the public access to > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of > Azerbaijani corporations. Justification is to protect the privacy of Azeri > president and his family. Interesting. Henceforth, the general public > would be denied such information, since it “contradicts the national > interests of Azerbaijan". > > Azerbaijan: Parliament Throws Veil of Secrecy over Business Sector > > http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65534 > June 13, 2012 - 12:00pm, by Shahin > Abbasov > > > - Azerbaijan > - EurasiaNet's Weekly > Digest > > - Azeri Economy > - Azeri Politics > > Recent legislative efforts in Azerbaijan to protect the privacy of > President Ilham Aliyev and his family are coming at the expense of > investors, both foreign and domestic. > > The Azerbaijani parliament voted June 12 to restrict public access to > information about the registration, ownership structure and shareholders of > Azerbaijani corporations. In addition, legislators granted President Aliyev > and his wife, First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, lifetime immunity from criminal > prosecution. > > The immunity provision for the Aliyevs was not unexpected: the proposal had > been under consideration for a year. But the corporate secrecy amendment > was added to parliament’s agenda only after the conclusion of the May > 22-26 Eurovision > Song Contest . > > The pop-music festival, which brought unprecedented international attention > to Azerbaijan, was preceded by a series of articles by RFE/RL investigative > journalist Khadija Ismayilova, who highlighted alleged conflicts of > interest involving mining rights granted to a gold-mining > companyowned > by President Aliyev’s two daughters, Leyla and Arzu, and Eurovision > construction work by a company linked > to the two Aliyevas and First Lady Mehriban Aliyeva, the head of > Eurovision’s organizing committee. [Editor’s Note: Islamyilova also > contributes to EurasiaNet]. > > By law, officials’ relatives may own businesses, but members of parliament > – the First Lady sits in the legislature for the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan > Party – cannot. > > In public statements, government officials have asserted that such > investigative coverage violated the presidential family’s right to > privacy. > The articles followed earlier pieces that examined the Aliyeva daughters’ > investments in telecommunications, airport operations and banking. > > Under the terms of the secrecy amendment, obtaining information about such > investments now could prove more difficult. The government will release > information about the registrations of for-profit companies only upon > request by a court, law-enforcement agency or Central Bank monitors > investigating suspected money-laundering or the financing of terrorist > groups. > > Journalists and the general public would be denied such information if its > distribution “contradicts the national interests of Azerbaijan in > political, economic and monetary policy, the defense of public order, the > health and moral values of the people and harms the commercial and other > interests of individuals.” > > In addition, corporate records will be provided only if the petitioner has > the consent of those individuals named in the data. > > Information about registered Azerbaijani companies’ ownership and > shareholders previously had been publicly available on the Ministry of > Taxes’ website. The ministry was required to provide registry details to > citizens within a week of receipt of a written request. > > All but four of the 103 members of parliament present voted in favor of the > restrictions. Another two MPs did not vote; First Lady Aliyeva was not > present. > > President Aliyev is expected to sign the secrecy and immunity amendments > into law this week. > > Government officials have not commented on the amendments, but one senior > Yeni Azerbaijani Party MP who backed the new restrictions claimed the > measure does not limit Azerbaijanis’ right to information. In June 6 > comments to the Azeri-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, > Ali Huseynly, chair of the parliament’s Committee on Legal Policy and State > Building, claimed that the amendment “clarifies the frameworks for the > right to receive information.” The lack of such “frameworks” often leads to > “violations,” Huseynly added. > > Parliamentarian Fazail Agamaly, a member of the pro-government Ana Vatan > (Motherland) Party, asserted that “[j]ournalists should be satisfied with > the information about a company provided by its owner.” > > “Otherwise, the release of some information could create financial problems > for businesses,” Agamaly reasoned. > > Civil society and media-rights watchdogs counter that the secrecy > amendment, indeed, is designed to prevent problems – namely, for Aliyev’s > friends and family members. > > Lawyer Intigam Aliyev [no relation to the presidential family], director of > the Legal Education Society, a Baku non-governmental organization that > monitors legislation implementation, asserted the amendment is “a response > of corrupt authorities to a number of articles in local and foreign media > about the large business assets of the ruling family in Azerbaijan and > oligarchs.” > > Opposition MP Igbal Aghazade, a member of the Umid (Hope) Party, who voted > against the amendment, said the measure only “serves the idea of keeping > information about the commercial interests of a group of high-ranking > government officials a secret.” > > Restricting the availability of company data from the public can harm the > country’s ability to fight corruption, noted Media Rights Institute > Director Rashid Hajily. In 2011, Azerbaijan ranked 143rd out of 183 > countries in a corruption index compiled by the international watchdog > group Transparency International. > > "Citizens will be deprived of public [oversight] over officials’ links with > businesses," Hajily said. "It creates a strong foundation for the > proliferation of conflicts of interest.” > > Meanwhile, activists who tried to > highlight > Azerbaijan’s spotty civil-rights record during the Eurovision contest say > that they will fight back against the “business secrets” amendment. “We > will campaign both locally and internationally, will demand in public > debates the annulment of this legislation, will raise the issue at related > international conferences and in interviews with foreign media,” pledged > Rasul Jafarov, head of the Human Rights Club, a Baku-based non-governmental > organization. > Editor's note: > Shahin Abbasov is a freelance reporter based in Baku. > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: > >> Dear members of the list >> >> >> >> latest news from Baku published by IPS >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> After the Curtain Call, a Crackdown Begins >> By Shahla Sultanova >> Republish >> | >> >> BAKU, Jun 19 2012 (IPS) - As the attention of the world faded away from >> Azerbaijan after the recent Eurovision song contest, police began >> targeting >> some young activists and a journalist involved in protests here last >> month. >> >> The Eurovision song contest was as much a moment of enjoyment for music >> lovers as it was a fierce contest between the Azerbaijani government and >> its opponents to highlight the ‘reality’ of a politically turbulent >> country; with the former presenting a respectable image to the West, and >> the latter struggling to expose human rights violations and government >> suppression of basic civil liberties. >> >> More than ten protest rallies were organised on the eve of the contest. >> >> Human rights defenders and activists had anticipated a post-Eurovision >> crackdown, when the spotlight had turned away from the country and the >> government would be free to punish those who had dared to educate the >> world >> about the grave situation on the ground in Azerbaijan. >> >> On Jun. 6, the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS), a >> media >> rights watchdog, was notified by the Sabail District Police Office that a >> photo journalist named Mehman Huseynov, an IRFS member, had allegedly >> insulted police officers during a protest on May 21. >> >> The district police office has now opened a criminal case against >> Huseynov >> under Article 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic. >> If >> found guilty, Huseynov will face five years in prison. >> >> Huseynov (23), said the accusation is related to his work, which for many >> years has entailed photographing events that depict government >> wrongdoings >> and disseminating them via social media. >> >> Several months prior to Eurovision, Huseynov actively joined the Sing for >> Democracy Campaign. >> >> “I was media coordinator within the campaign. My photos and videos were >> shared in international media. Of course, they showed the reality of >> Azerbaijan, (which) is unfortunately not very positive. That is why I am >> a >> target now,” he told IPS. >> >> Over 30 human rights organisations joined Sing for Democracy in an effort >> to pressure organisers of the contest to demand greater democracy in >> Azerbaijan. >> >> The campaign called for the release of political prisoners, freedom of >> expression and assembly, protection of property rights and the >> independence >> of courts. >> >> IRFS head Emin Huseynov, Mehman Huseynov’s older brother, links the >> accusation against the latter with his profession. “It is the start of >> the >> post-Eurovision crackdown. It is revenge against the IRFS for actively >> informing foreign journalists and international media on the eve of >> Eurovision about many harassment cases in Azerbaijan. Besides, during >> seven >> years of work, we investigated many cases of pressure on journalists. >> Now, >> they want to punish us.” >> >> Before the song contest, Leyla Yunus, director of the Institute of Peace >> and Democracy, had often warned of a serious backlash after the >> Eurovision-fuelled tourist season died down. She believes Mehman Huseynov >> is the first victim of that campaign. >> >> “Mehman’s work has been shared and discussed recently. Besides, he is >> working for IRFS, which is critical of the government. By arresting him >> they want to (blacklist) a good photo journalist and put pressure on his >> brother Emin.” >> >> Various other activists were also brought into police stations this week. >> >> Beyim Hasanli, a member of the opposition Popular Front Party’s Youth >> Committee was called in to the Sebayil district police station on Jun. 9. >> >> She was asked how she got information about the May 21 protest action and >> why she attended it. Hasanli was also asked if she ever noticed a media >> representative being rude to the police. >> Related IPS Articles >> >> - Sex and Censorship in >> Azerbaijan >> - Arab Spring at Azerbaijan’s >> Door >> - Azerbaijan and Israel: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My >> Friend >> >> “After that they showed me a video in which I was trying to help a woman >> dragged by police. There were many journalists, including Mehman, who >> tried >> to film it but police would not let them do so. It also showed Mehman >> (swearing) when he was not allowed to film.” >> >> After that Hasanli was asked to write a report on what she saw on video. >> >> A week ago, her father was called in to the Absheron district Main Police >> Office and asked to sign a statement promising to be responsible for his >> daughter’s activities. >> >> Hasanli claims all this was done to intimidate and discourage her from >> being an activist. >> >> Natig Adilov, a journalist with the opposition Azadlig newspaper and >> activist with the Popular Front Party, was called in to the Sabirabad >> police station on Jun. 13, where he was “advised” to get involved in >> better >> activities than participating in protest rallies. >> >> “They do it to scare people so that they stop their public activity. For >> autocratic regimes like this, intimidation is very important to manage >> their (stronghold). It is also related to me being very active during >> Eurovision,” said Adilov. >> >> Ehsan Zahidov, spokesman for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, said the >> recent slew of interrogations against activists and journalists has >> nothing >> to do with their activity during the Eurovision song contest or their >> political background but pertained to them violating “rules”. >> >> “To advise people (on how to behave) is part of the job of police >> officers. They do not care about the political activity of citizens. >> Natig >> Adilov was just advised not to violate public order. That is it,” he told >> IPS. >> >> For Arzu Abdullayeva, human rights defender and co-chair of the Helsinki >> Citizens Assembly, recent pressure on journalists is not limited to >> Eurovision activity. >> >> “Activists have always been a threat to the Azerbaijani government. By >> (putting) pressure on activists, journalists, by arresting them, the >> government (lets potential dissidents) know that they will have the same >> future.” >> >> Human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights >> Watch condemned the accusation against Huseynov. >> >> The authorities should “drop the bogus charges against Huseynov and >> ensure >> that he can exercise his right to freedom of expression”, Human Rights >> Watch said in its recent report. >> >> Amnesty International’s statement mentions that Huseynov’s arrest comes >> amid a worrying rise in police harassment of young activists who >> participated in protests around Eurovision. >> >> According to Max Tucker, Amnesty International’s Azerbaijan campaigner, >> Mehman’s arrest signals the start of the widely predicted government >> crackdown on those they consider responsible for negative publicity >> during >> Eurovision. >> >> (END) >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Media Education Center > Yerevan, Armenia > > www.mediaeducation.am > www.safe.am > www.immasin.am > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- >                      >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           > Japan > www.anr.org > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Jul 8 17:29:26 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:29:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, I agree with the draft. Best, Louis - - - On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear IGC, > > Hoping that you saw that the link has changed to > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73 as Izumi pointed out and > was due to a bug in the system which has now been resolved. > > Kind Regards, > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 18:59:58 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 03:59:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Here are some noodles from a trade association perspective to digest aoc: http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN-U.S._AOC Fouad Bajwa On Jul 8, 2012 10:06 PM, "John Curran" wrote: > On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: > > CIR management, especially vis a vis oversight issues, came to my mind as > I read this. Those who have rooted for the current AoC based review > mechanisms as *the* oversight system may especially take note. This report > shows the need and the role of independent and outside oversight systems > for critical technical infrastructures. > > > Parminder - > > Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review > mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also, > are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the > independence of same? > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the > preparation this 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 Sun Jul 8 19:25:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:25:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Jean-Louis and Louis. For those who disagree with portions or which to comment on specific paragraphs, please visit the Statement Workspace via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73 Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Dear Sala, > > I agree with the draft. > > Best, Louis > - - - > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear IGC, >> >> Hoping that you saw that the link has changed to >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/73 as Izumi pointed out and was >> due to a bug in the system which has now been resolved. >> >> Kind Regards, >> > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jul 8 19:40:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:40:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the 11 Candidates for the Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FF9DBD2.40609@communisphere.com> References: <4FF9DBD2.40609@communisphere.com> Message-ID: To: The Nominating Committee Thank you Thomas for your leadership. Thank you also to Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed Haq, Shahid Akbar, Wilson Abigaba for the excellent work that you have done do so far in selecting the new members of the Appeal Team. We would also like to congratulate the members of the Appeals Team on their appointment. Again, we would like to thank you all for the extraordinary work and committment shown. With Kind Regards, Izumi and Sala (Coordinators) Dear Thomas On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > IGC Members, > > I am delighted that 11 qualified members of the Civic Society Internet > Governance Caucus have been nominated and agreed to serve on the Appeals > Team: > > Deirdre Williams > Imran Ahmed Shah > Ian Peter > Roland Perry > Ginger Paque > Judy Okite > Shaila Rao Mistry > Michael Gurstein > Gurumurthy Kasinathan > Raquel Gatto > Vincent Solomon Aliama > > The Nominating Committee would like to express the appreciation of the > entire IGC to the nominees for stepping forward. While we all hope the > activation of such an oversight mechanism will be unnecessary, preparation > is vital to our continued success as an organization. > > At this point the Nominating Committee will be making the difficult choice > of selecting 5 from these 11 qualified candidates. We expect to report back > to you mid-month. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), > on behalf of the NomCom voting members: > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed haq > Shahid Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 9 07:06:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:36:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> Message-ID: <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> On Sunday 08 July 2012 10:35 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: > >> (snip) > > Parminder - > Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review > mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also, > are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the > independence of same? > > Thanks! > /John John In his blog, Milton described accountability under AoC rather interestingly :) (http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/ ) ASO to NRO: we need to be reviewed! NRO to ASO: don't worry, I'll do it NRO to ITEMS: here's some money, do a review ITEMS to ASO: We talked to both heads, here's your report ! ASO and NRO: We are now reviewing your review report! Here are our comments ITEMS, NRO and ASO: Splendid! Let's have tea! You can see that review boards are filled by nominees of ICANN supporting structures, so I dont know why you ask me what I mean by 'independent and outside' review. Well, even applying ICANN's standards elsewhere, in its bylaws dealing with independent review through ICDR's independent arbitration rules, would be a good start. To quote Independent from ICANN (i.e., not an ICANN employee; not a regular participant in ICANN's processes; not a member of any ICANN Sponsoring Organization or Advisory Committee; not affiliated with any registrar or registry holding a contract with ICANN). ( http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/mechanisms-experts-eoi-11mar12-en.htm ) This I would say is the least. And AoC review boards clearly do not conform even to this standard of 'independence' from the ICANN. So who is reviewing whom? (Two members of one of the review boards recently resigned form the board to join ICANN! I see that the present CEO of Go daddy registrar was a member of accountability review board! Dont know if he was concurrently both.) I also cannot understand how the chair of the board of ICANN, the main party to be reviewed and made accountable, can have a veto on choosing members of the review board. Accordingly, we can take it that these 4 review boards are at the most internal review boards, for focussing some amount of organisational thinking on needed process changes etc. By no stretch of imagination can they be considered and proposed as oversight, and accountability extracting, bodies, as some people have liberally been doing. We see AoC review boards frequently mentioned in discussions over CIR oversight. In the above light, this can be considered as wrong, and kind of misleading. parminder > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the > preparation this email. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From caribe at entropia.blog.br Mon Jul 9 07:15:27 2012 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:15:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. []s Joao Carlos Caribe Em 22/06/2012, às 16:54, Milton L Mueller escreveu: > Has anyone from the US applied for or gotten a visa for Azerbaijan yet? > They outsource to some company http://azerbaijanvisa.travisaoutsourcing.com/azerbaijan/homepage > but no one makes it clear exactly which kind of visa you need for something like the IGF. > There are some references to "letters of invitation" in particular which disturb me. Is the IGF issuing such letters en masse? > > Milton L. Mueller > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > Internet Governance Project > http://blog.internetgovernance.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- João Carlos Caribé Publicitário e Consultor de mídias sociais http://entropia.blog.br caribe at entropia.blog.br twitter @caribe / skype joaocaribe (21) 8761 1967 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 07:29:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:59:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FFAC07C.3020206@itforchange.net> Even after a review board is constituted, it has to work within the guidelines issues by the ICANN Board, which could be whatever, and could perhaps even change/ adapt.... The first task of the review team is given as "Reviewing and adopting the review processes in accordance with guidelines issued by the Board following the ongoing public consultation phase; " Doesnt look like oversight to me. Unclear who is overseeing whom, the review teams overseeing ICANN or ICANN overseeing the review teams. parminder On Monday 09 July 2012 04:36 PM, parminder wrote: > On Sunday 08 July 2012 10:35 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> (snip) >> >> Parminder - >> Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review >> mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also, >> are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the >> independence of same? >> >> Thanks! >> /John > > John > > In his blog, Milton described accountability under AoC rather > interestingly :) > (http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/ > ) > > ASO to NRO: we need to be reviewed! > > NRO to ASO: don’t worry, I’ll do it > > NRO to ITEMS: here’s some money, do a review > > ITEMS to ASO: We talked to both heads, here’s your report > ! > > ASO and NRO: We are now reviewing your review report! Here are > our comments > > > ITEMS, NRO and ASO: Splendid! Let’s have tea! > > > You can see that review boards are filled by nominees of ICANN > supporting structures, so I dont know why you ask me what I mean by > 'independent and outside' review. > > Well, even applying ICANN's standards elsewhere, in its bylaws dealing > with independent review through ICDR's independent arbitration rules, > would be a good start. To quote > > Independent from ICANN (i.e., not an ICANN employee; not a regular > participant in ICANN's processes; not a member of any ICANN > Sponsoring Organization or Advisory Committee; not affiliated with > any registrar or registry holding a contract with ICANN). ( > http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/mechanisms-experts-eoi-11mar12-en.htm > ) > > This I would say is the least. And AoC review boards clearly do not > conform even to this standard of 'independence' from the ICANN. So who > is reviewing whom? > > (Two members of one of the review boards recently resigned form the > board to join ICANN! I see that the present CEO of Go daddy registrar > was a member of accountability review board! Dont know if he was > concurrently both.) > > I also cannot understand how the chair of the board of ICANN, the main > party to be reviewed and made accountable, can have a veto on choosing > members of the review board. > > Accordingly, we can take it that these 4 review boards are at the most > internal review boards, for focussing some amount of organisational > thinking on needed process changes etc. By no stretch of imagination > can they be considered and proposed as oversight, and accountability > extracting, bodies, as some people have liberally been doing. We see > AoC review boards frequently mentioned in discussions over CIR > oversight. In the above light, this can be considered as wrong, and > kind of misleading. > > parminder > >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the >> preparation this email. >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 9 07:29:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:59:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FFAC090.4090209@itforchange.net> Even after a review team is constituted, it has to work within the guidelines issues by the ICANN Board, which could be whatever, and could perhaps even change/ adapt.... The first task of the review team is given as "Reviewing and adopting the review processes in accordance with guidelines issued by the Board following the ongoing public consultation phase; " Doesnt look like oversight to me. Unclear who is overseeing whom, the review teams overseeing ICANN or ICANN overseeing the review teams. parminder On Monday 09 July 2012 04:36 PM, parminder wrote: > On Sunday 08 July 2012 10:35 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jul 8, 2012, at 10:48 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> (snip) >> >> Parminder - >> Could you elaborate on why you view the present AoC-based review >> mechanisms as not being "independent and outside" of ICANN? Also, >> are there particular improvements you would suggest to improve the >> independence of same? >> >> Thanks! >> /John > > John > > In his blog, Milton described accountability under AoC rather > interestingly :) > (http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/ > ) > > ASO to NRO: we need to be reviewed! > > NRO to ASO: don’t worry, I’ll do it > > NRO to ITEMS: here’s some money, do a review > > ITEMS to ASO: We talked to both heads, here’s your report > ! > > ASO and NRO: We are now reviewing your review report! Here are > our comments > > > ITEMS, NRO and ASO: Splendid! Let’s have tea! > > > You can see that review boards are filled by nominees of ICANN > supporting structures, so I dont know why you ask me what I mean by > 'independent and outside' review. > > Well, even applying ICANN's standards elsewhere, in its bylaws dealing > with independent review through ICDR's independent arbitration rules, > would be a good start. To quote > > Independent from ICANN (i.e., not an ICANN employee; not a regular > participant in ICANN's processes; not a member of any ICANN > Sponsoring Organization or Advisory Committee; not affiliated with > any registrar or registry holding a contract with ICANN). ( > http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/mechanisms-experts-eoi-11mar12-en.htm > ) > > This I would say is the least. And AoC review boards clearly do not > conform even to this standard of 'independence' from the ICANN. So who > is reviewing whom? > > (Two members of one of the review boards recently resigned form the > board to join ICANN! I see that the present CEO of Go daddy registrar > was a member of accountability review board! Dont know if he was > concurrently both.) > > I also cannot understand how the chair of the board of ICANN, the main > party to be reviewed and made accountable, can have a veto on choosing > members of the review board. > > Accordingly, we can take it that these 4 review boards are at the most > internal review boards, for focussing some amount of organisational > thinking on needed process changes etc. By no stretch of imagination > can they be considered and proposed as oversight, and accountability > extracting, bodies, as some people have liberally been doing. We see > AoC review boards frequently mentioned in discussions over CIR > oversight. In the above light, this can be considered as wrong, and > kind of misleading. > > parminder > >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal unions were established in the >> preparation this email. >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 9 11:46:14 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:46:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] fukushima disaster report In-Reply-To: <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> References: <4FF99DA2.5020103@itforchange.net> <3F996C74-A7CC-48F6-8365-293E9A634B54@istaff.org> <4FFABB1B.4000201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <111F1BF2-08E5-425E-A905-92B6BA8F2A9D@istaff.org> On Jul 9, 2012, at 7:06 AM, parminder wrote: > In his blog, Milton described accountability under AoC rather interestingly :) (http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/05/04/accountability-under-the-affirmation-of-commitments/ ) > ASO to NRO: we need to be reviewed! > NRO to ASO: don’t worry, I’ll do it > > NRO to ITEMS: here’s some money, do a review > > ITEMS to ASO: We talked to both heads, here’s your report! > Parminder - It might be more informative to read the review report itself rather than Milton's "description"... The review was researched and written by an independent firm with input from more than 100 face-to-face interviews (including Milton, apparently :-) There was also both RIR and ICANN public comment periods held on the draft report. If you believe that you did not have any opportunity to comment or that your comments were not considered, please let me know asap. I will note, however, the question I asked was about the AoC-specified reviews and how they could be improved. > I also cannot understand how the chair of the board of ICANN, the main party to be reviewed and made accountable, can have a veto on choosing members of the review board. > > Accordingly, we can take it that these 4 review boards are at the most internal review boards, for focussing some amount of organisational thinking on needed process changes etc. By no stretch of imagination can they be considered and proposed as oversight, and accountability extracting, bodies, as some people have liberally been doing. You've raised a difficult issue, since you have asserted a problem not with the execution of the AoC review process but inherent to the definition of the review teams as contained within the AoC document itself. For example - "The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN." While the review teams do contract for an independent expert review (e.g. the Accountability and Transparency Review contracted for an independent study to be done by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society), it is true that the team that considers the review has folks from both the ICANN Board and from the SO/AC organizations. I actually do not know how you could have useful recommendations for change without involving such parties, but if you feel it impunes the independence of the results, then I highly recommend that you provide written comments to that effect into the next ATRT process. Also, I would be interested in knowing if there were comments submitted into the present review process which did not make the final recommendations, as this would at least provide evidence of an issue beyond the theoretical. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Safety belt requires actual engagement on the part of the user in order to function properly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Jul 10 06:39:48 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:39:48 +0700 Subject: [governance] ACTA process in US is Unconstitutional: Law Professors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FFC0674.3010208@gmx.net> FYI Law Professors Declare Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Unconstitutional Without Congressional Approval Today, fifty U.S. legal scholars sent an open letter to the Members of the Senate Finance Committee, asking each of them to ?exercise your Constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is submitted to [Congress].? The full letter is available at infojustice.org/senatefinance-may2012 -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jul 10 09:49:34 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:49:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online Message-ID: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Deal all, In regard to my "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" counter-proposal to the idea of an increased role for ITU in Internet Governance, I have the initial Internet-Draft online now at http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 Please let me know what you think, preferably by posting on this list. (Note: This Internet-Draft will not actually show up in the IETF's list of Internet-Drafts until July 30 since we're currently in the pre-IETF-meeting phase for IETF 84 in Vancouver, during which no new Internet-Drafts are processed.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jul 10 10:59:17 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:59:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Picking up where the IGF left off: our role in the future of Internet governance In-Reply-To: (message from Avri Doria on Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:30:57 -0400) References: <2178DE6D-34E3-4175-9B19-6B1D7F02F1CE@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20120710145917.7656B1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > I think it is too early to give up on the IGF. I'm absolutely *not* giving up on the IGF. But right now IMO the way forward towards meeting the legitimate (not all desires of all governments are legitimate, some e.g. violate human rights) internet related "enhanced cooperate" needs of governments, and establishing a functioning multistakeholder process for issuing recommendation where needed, does not appear feasible in a way that makes it right now formally part of the IGF. > As I have argued elsewhere, its locus of control is shifting from > the UN initiation to the input of multiple national and regional > IGF-like multi-stakehoder meetings. Not there yet, but it is > becoming a national and regionally motivated organization. Maybe more a movement than an organization? Which would be good, since movements are harder to centrally control or kill. > I see a twofold problem with starting from scratch yet again : > > - need to attract the governments Obviously the best way forward is to leverage the IGF as much as we can, by means of pre-events as well as the various available channels within the IGF proper. > - need to go through all the early growing pain nonsense that the > IGF is just starting to come out of. Generally speaking, the "early growing pain nonsense" is generally speaking a smaller problem compared to the effort and risks associated with trying to change something that appears to be working. 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 brett at accessnow.org Tue Jul 10 13:41:31 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:41:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Just catching up on a ton of emails while traveling; I wanted to set out a few broader thoughts (sorry for the long email - and now I see the conversation moved with Marianne from Governance to IRP so this email will cross post). No one person or group 'owns' the internet, should determine how it is governed, or has the mandate to create the set of internet principles. Instead a willingness to enter into conversations, to understand what came before and improve from one's own starting point should be a defining factor with which to judge initiatives. In the context of principles, I am of the opinion that we should not only allow, but encourage a thousand connected flowers to bloom. And that is exactly what is happening, in many different and varied forums (the compiled list is a great resource - thanks Jeremy for putting this together). Seeing how some of those initiatives may converge and support each other I think is the next step. With respect to the Internet Declaration, there was a lot of momentum post SOPA/PIPA, so trying to propel that energy with a positive agenda (as opposed to 'Down with SOPA/PIPA!' etc), seems smart to me. Access first became engaged in part because its aim (as can be seen from the preamble) was to actively engage users in the discussion (hence reedit, techdirt etc). I am strongly of the opinion that an internet declaration cannot be written by a few people behind closed doors. I have conveyed to the core group of drafters of the importance of making sure that this Internet Declaration be part of the conversation, not *the* conversation, and that a final, more complete declaration should be allowed to evolve. The Declaration as is, is going global; there are individuals signatories from more 120 counties; hundreds organizational signatories (including APC, Amnesty International Bytes for All (Pakistan), Global Voices, Reporters without Borders etc). To my mind, there are certainly things that are missing from the Declaration. For example, whilst all of the principles are rights based (hence why Amnesty International and we signed on) the words 'human rights' are not mentioned. It does not include some of the elements of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles. 'Life, liberty and security' for example is missing. It also does not recognize properly the principles and documents that have come before, including WSIS commitments. In its defense it says *"We are joining an international movement to defend our freedoms because we believe that they are worth fighting for."* There is some momentum towards addressing these concerns (including putting or referencing other initiatives in the Preamble) and I with others have been pushing for this. * * *On the IRP 10 Rights and Principles , *I agree with others analysis above.* *It was pretty clear to me in 2010 that the Charter was just too dense for advocates, many policy makers and most users and was (rightly) taking a long time to get it right. A few of us at the IGF in Vilnius agreed to take the lead on drafting a "distilled, punchy version" of the Charter, and after many (many) rounds of internal debate and discussion on the IRP list and beyond, we got consensus as Dixie and others pointed out. I personally think are awesome (except one word in Principle 10 should say multistakeholder not multilateral). I know these 10 principles are being used in many contexts (its translated in 21 languages). The problem however with this document was that it was never given the resources to publicize it and unlike the Declaration, didn't have the organizational reach to get it out into the user-base. See the list below by way of contrast. This doesn't mean the 10 Rights and Principles are not important - they have a life of their own, and we should continue to push them in appropriate forums, including into the text of the Internet Declaration. As Wolfgang said in another thread, this material should be more actively used and there is opportunity to operationalise them as Dixie has suggested. Getting buy in, let alone consensus as we all know can be a total nightmare. It can lead to paralysis, but I think its worth trying. I also want to note, that many groups haven't ever heard of the IGC, the IRP Dynamic Coalition or Enhanced Cooperation - why would they have? We need to engage more people (particularly Americans?) in the WSIS process, to understand the commitments and to take the IGF process forward (incidentally I dont think we need a new IGF or otherwise). One last point on this - with so many active and informed individuals on this list, some of the conversations can be pretty overwhelming/intimidating, so its hard to invite new people here. I was also thinking that the IGF might be the right time to try to bring the stakeholders together. A quo vardis meeting (let's not call it that!) or IRP meeting would make sense. I would love to be part of that. I also think that there is lots of room for cross pollination before then and look forward to discussions online ahead of a face to face meeting. Sam's suggestions of curation and coordination should be encouraged. Best wishes, Brett PS Who hacked the IRP site and how? I can get our tech defense team to look at it if that is useful. -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A *Organizational Signatories* - Access Take Action! - Access Humboldt - Alliance for Community Media - American Civil Liberties Union Take Action! - Amicus - Amnesty International - Association for Progressive Communications - Association for Women's Rights in Development - Attachments.me - Aviary - Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Bits of Freedom - Bolo Bhi - Boulder Denver New Tech - Boxee - Breadpig - Bytes for All - CALPIRG - Calyx Institute - Center for Democracy & Technology - Center for Digital Democracy - Center for Media Justice - Center for Rural Strategies - Centre for Internet and Society - Cheezburger, Inc. - Circa - ColorOfChange.org - Communication Is Your Right - CREDO Take Action! - DailyKos - Demand Progress - Digitale Gesellschaft e.V. - Digital Sisters - Echo Ditto, Inc. - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights - Electronic Frontier Foundation Take Action! - Entertainment Consumers Association - Fark, Inc. - Favstar - Fight for the Future Take Action! - Foundry Group - Free Press Take Action! - Free Speech TV - Future of Music Coalition - Girl Develop It - Globalvision - Global Voices Advocacy - Greenlining - Hackers & Founders - Harry Potter Alliance - Human Rights First - Hypothes.is - If I Were President - Imagine K12 - Industry Ears - Institute for Local Self Reliance - Internet Infrastructure Coalition - The Julia Group - Laughing Squid - Levo League - Loudsauce - Lower Third Productions - MacUser magazine - MakerBot - May First/People Link - Media Equity Collaborative - Media Literacy Project - Media Mobilizing Project - Mother Jones - Mozilla - NAMAC - National Hispanic Media Coalition - NationBuilder - Native Public Media - Netroots Nation - New Media Rights - NY Tech Meetup - Open Knowledge Foundation - OpenMedia.ca - OpenMIC - Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation - Orbotix - Organizing 2.0 - Participatory Politics Foundation - People's Production House - Personal Democracy Media - Pirate Party of Spain (PIRATA) - Presente.org - Privacy Camp - Prometheus Radio Project - Public Knowledge - Public News Service - Rebuild the Dream - reddit - Reporters Without Borders - Rewired State - Rhizome - Save Hosting Coalition - Seismologik - SEOmoz - Shuttleworth Foundation - SideTour - SlideShare - SMBC - Social Media Club - Sonic.net - Techdirt - Techstars - 350.org - Topspin - Trippi & Associates - Truthout - Tucows - Union Square Ventures - UNITY Journalists - The UpTake - Upworthy - Ushahidi - Witness - Women In Media & News - Women Who Tech - Women's Media Center - Y Combinator - Yesware - Young Rewired State 10 drink minimum - 12Petals Media Group - 3:10 To Overtime - 3Degrees Agency - 4 the World - 4sqwifi - 5000Hands, Inc. - 8E Riesenschlangen (Large Python Rescue) - A Moving Picture Studios - A Small Orange - Abhyudaya - Abraxis Reader Service - ABSIS - Abstruse Design & Consulting - Accionesyopciones.com - achurch & associates pty ltd - ACLAP - ADAGES - Adapt Partners LLC - Adhelis - AdMecha, LLC - adNET inc. - Adtwik - Aegis-technical.com - Affect - Africa Gathering - Agence Tunisienne d'Internet - Agility Internet Solutions - Akoo.be - Alchemnini, LLC - ALDIL (l'Association Lyonnaise pour le Développement de l'Informatique Libre) - All-American Country Music - Allegood Computers, LLC - Alliteration Ink - AllStruck - AlnAndr IT, LLC - Alternativa Digital, S.A. de C.V. - Alternative Informatics Association (Alternatif Bilişim Derneği) - Alternatives - AMDG Productions - AnchorFree - Andrew Larsen Projects - Ann sumo photography - AP Records LLC - Apex Workstations - APJE.biz - apocadocs.com - Applied IT Systems LLC - AppLode - ArchipelProject - Arizona Business Technology - ARm42 - ARTIST & AGENCY - Artistick - ARTS & FARCES LLC - Ask The Computer Experts - Asmfoot Association - Associação de Defesa ao Consumidor, ao Meio Ambiente e ao Patrimônio Público e Histórico de Nova Era, ONG PRÓ-CIDADANIA - Association Freedom & Responsibility - atoll project - Atomic Monkey - Austin Preclinical Consulting LLC - AutreachIT - Avant Prime - Averett Photo Room - Awesome Foundation - aworks.kz - AxSGranted - AzadCyber - Azura Designs - Babelverse - BalmWorks - BAMM.tv - Barriton Web Agency (Agence Barriton) - Bauer-Power Media - Bayou City Techs - BCS (Brouwer Computer Service) - Bemusedenterprises.Com - Beyond Tomorrow - beyondclicktivism (Tim would like to be added as an individual) - Big Heavy World - Bintelligence Ltda. - Birchmere Labs - Bitbureauet - BKK - Black Ravens Gaming - Black St Press - Black Talon, LLC - Blacknight - BlackSmurf - Blame it on the Voices - Blaqk Sheep - Blue Gears - Blue Tie Media - Bocoup - bookofdoug - Bossa Studios - braincomputerinterfaces.at - Brave New Software Project, In - Breaker - Brian Parkhill Rare Books - Broadband Reports - Brookhaven/AwesomeCave Productions - BrowserFame - Bruce W Conley - The Computer Coach - BTC Machine - buch & netz - Bullet Proof Microsystems - Business Blogging - ButtonsWebGroup - BZCo - c&c Design Consultants - Cabs-ontime - Cafe De Italia - Cafe Mono - Calabozo Mutante - Callida - Calyx Institute - Canadian Journalists for Free Expression - Canvas Webhouse - Cappadocia Academy - Carlisle Earth and Ocean Services - Carpe Chaos - Cartenz Media - CasaHop - castalian spring - Caulfield+Trout - Center for Digital Democracy - Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia - Cerahati Digital Media - Cerberus Studios - Cerebral Developments - ChaseIT - ChasMalloy.Com - chatme.im - Checker's Records Collective - CheckMyMind - Checkthis - Chicago IT Systems, S.L. - Christianwick.com - ChrisWill Computers - CircuitSoft LLC - CITTADINI DIGITALI. Siamo noi quelli che stiamo aspettando. - Claystone Communications - Cliq Marketing - CloudWebTechnologies - Coalition Gaming - CODE PAINTERS LLC - Codemanship - Codicem - Coffee Party USA - Colectivo Mente Colmena - Colltales - COM'in.2 - Community Media Center of Marin - CompStar2011 - Computer Bob - CondonTech - ConnectionVPN.com - Consult M< - ControlledVocabulary - Cordes et Âmes - CR Computer Solutions - CrazedPixel Comics - Creative Juiz - Creative Space - Creative Tools AB - CRESTA S.A. - Cristaldi Designs LLC - cs-fr.org - CSICON (The Committee for the Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal) - CSP Consultores - Ctenophore LLC - Cucco - Cwy Technologies, LLC - cy2be - CyberGhost S.R.L. - CyberGhost S.R.L. - Cybrilla Technologies Pvt Ltd - D2PAD - Daisy Web Promotions - Danish Centre for Arts & Interculture - DANYPC56 - Data Link Professionals - De Baas Research - Deadpsyq - Dear Future - DeClutter Bug - Deltree - Desertainment - Design CGS - Design Cloud - Designslife - DGMetrics, Inc. - Dia Studios - Dial Tone Pictures - Digital Democracy - Digital Digging - Digital Empowerment Foundation - Digital Identity Ltd - Digital Workshop - Digitalemotion - Digitallife.gr - Directors Notes - Djineo - DK Production Design LLC - dlh technology - DLS - DNSimple - Dr.BiT - DreamHack AB - Dreamwidth Studios - Drops of HOPE - DucStuff - Dynamic - E & B Adverting Inc - e-domen - easy-creation.com - easyReservations - eBiz Consult - EBSI - Effortless Running - ehip - Eight-Zero-Eight - ElectroJams Media, LLC - Electronic Frontiers Australia - Elephant Boy Computers - Else For If - EnigmaBoard - Enliken - Epic Displays - Ergoigl Inc. - Eroth Productions, LLC - eslared - Espace Broderie - espace multimédia de ploemeur - Etiquette Networks, LLC - EURALO (European Regional At-Large Organization) - Exophrine - expectnomore.net - Explodify.com - Extra Future - Eyeluminations Inc. - F.F.T. MedienAgentur - Fairy Mayhem Films - Farah & Farah, P.A. - Feral Hosting - FiberCorps - Fipeo - FitzMaurice Publishers - FMMC/Armitage Recording - FoAM - Fondation Medine Horizos - ForgeZone - formatik - Forum Valley of the Wolves منتديات وادي الذئاب - Free Knowledge Institute - Free Press Unlimited - Free Range Content Inc - Freeappiaphones - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) - FreeHAL Project - FriBit - frombolivia - FrontBeach - Fulgurio - FUNREDES (Networks & Development Foundation) - Fusiondirectory - Futura Media - Future Business Networks, Inc. - Gazeta dos Arcos - GBM Technologies - GDF Commercial Art Agency - Gebull-Gâtine et Bocage Utilisateurs des Logiciels Libres - Geek News Central - Général Changelog Team - Genesis Gaming - Gentlemen Bastards - Gestor Consultores - Gipsy Chef, Llc - GJ's Computer Services - Glass Grenade Productions (elseFest) - GlenR Designs - Glitschka Studios - Global Green Film Productions - Global Journalist Security - Global Transhumanist Conspiracy - GNOME - Goldstein Media LLC - GrassWire - Greater Barclay Football Club - Green Napalm Productions - GreeneParrotPix - Greenhost - GreenQloud - Grid Wide News - Guimarães Andrade Advogados Associados - gxDesign - Habrahabr - Hacked `n Cracked - Hamilton Electronics Repair - Hanzo Archives - Happy Little Pigs - Haven/Bastion - Helion Frost Technology - Heyzap - Holders Place - Holes In The Net - Homeskillet Records - Homestyle Games - Honduras Cursos Inc - Hoosier Crane Service Company - Hose Master - House of Aries Studios - Humble.Delirious - Hunky Dorey Entertainment - I.T.S (Information Technology Solutions) - I2Mag: Internet and Design Inspiration Magazine - iBrattleboro.com - iBulla.com - iByte Networks, LLC - iceTree Media - ICON Software Solutions - IDCI-Consulting - IdEAL Order Psychic TV - IEEE Panama Computer Society - Igniter - IKT24 - Illianced - Illustrious Productions - Imagine! - iMatt Sàrl - IMMI (International Modern Media Institution) - Incendonet - Infinity News Network - info2dev - Information Society Innovation Fund (ISIF Asia) - InformedTrades - Infworm - inhospito.net - Ink4u.co.uk - Innocon - Innostrat Technologies - iNovve - Instart Gaming - Institute on Higher Awesome Studies - Instituto Nupef - Intense Computing - Intension Designs Ltd. - Interaction Design Centre - International Modern Media Institute - International Research Center - Internet Democracy Project - Internet Sans Frontières - InterPARES - Intune.Network - Iowans for Voting Integrity - IP Solution - IQumulus LLC - Iris Films - iShopUSA.com - ISOMERIC - IVCOD - IZE Creative - Jake DiMare Consulting - JALA International - Janua - JDR Enterprises - Jeff Rivett Consulting - Jeveuxduweb.com - Jigoshop - Joe Urbz Multimedia - joeycyprowski.com - Johan Ohm - Jonathan Browning Studios - Joylab.ca - JRWDevelopment - Julf Technology - Junge Piraten e.V. - JVARGAS LLC - jwr computers - kali-graph - Karl Kepler - Karma - Karmøy Naturstein AS - Karol Players Theatre Guild Inc - Kern Law, LTD - Khizhnyak Corp. - KillerMobi - KJ Centre - klimperei - Knipfty Equity Trek, Inc - komak - KOMart - Konsept Dışı - KontorMølla AS - Kooc Media - Korben - KRAKEN - Krumwiede Roofing - ktmproject.net - Kuhcoon - L0pht Heavy Industries - La Biosfera Eco-Retreat - La Galerie d'Eyffeir© - La Locura De Sargeras - Lab Rats Technica Digital Consulting - LAB4 Web Design - Lamar Book Depot - lartek.net - Lauda Inc. - LaunchGram - lead-trumpet.com - LeaguePodcast - Lean Green Machines - LeavesOfGrass.Org - Lefiant - LegendaryMousse - Les Alchimistes du Verbe - LetGoAndFlow.com - Letters From Strangers - Liberty Public Foundation - Lighting the Taper - LightPath Creative - Lindy Ravers - Liquid Culture - Little Red Tent Photography - Littlegemma Web Design - Locatrix Communications - Loop Productions - Lucas County Green Party - Lucid Computing Solutions - LUMU Invest Sàrl - Lyclic - MacUser magazine - Mailclub - majortek - Make your Girlfriend Happy - Manchester Gossip Ltd - Mandala Society Of Croatia - Manila Reviews - Más y Mejor Internet para Bolivia - Massive MKTG Inc. - Mbesn - Média Camp - MediaPop Inc. - Melbourne Server Hosting - Melhuus Design - Melon Farmers Ltd - meltyNetwork - Mexican Academy of IT Law - Mezeo Software - MG Installations - Miami Design Firm - Mid Arctic Technology Services - Mike Carson Creative - Mike Langer's PC Pit Stop - MillBro Chat IRC - Millennial Branding - Miller-Interactive - Mindloveproject - Miniksu Armories - Mischa Computer Consulting - Missing e - Mixed Media Marketing - ML Studio - MLA (Mike Lewin & Assoc) - Młodzi Socjaliści - MM LLC - Mobizi Inc. - Momentous Corp. - Momentum Leadership Consulting LLC - Montréal Ouvert - Mortar - Mountain West Marine - Movies.io - MovieViral.com - MRK Computer Services, Inc. - mtmedia.org - MUGA (mais um gabinete de arquitectura) - MullSoft Ltd. - Museum of Computer Culture - Musique Moderne - MWC News - My Digital Footprint - MyDebater - Mydex CIC - MyProfile Project - Napa Needlepoint - NARAUK - Natan Nikolic Design Ltd. - National Public Investigative Service LLC - NationBuilder - Nature's Choice - nemisys.com/weavervisions.com/zerothoughtsquared.com and more - Neowin LLC - Nepal Open Source Klub - Nerdcore.de - nerdfighters - nerdworking - Neterra Ltd - New Markets Venture Partners - New Rustic Future - Newman IT Solutions, Inc. - Newmarket Otaku - newsPAD - Nicoduv - Nightclubparanormal.com - nighthawk apps, LLC - Nikom - Nilsen ITCons - Nimonik - Nine Labs - NN-Sevais ltd. - noir - NOOKA - Norges Unge Venstre (The Young Liberals of Norway) - Northwest Ohio Broadband - NOSK - Notch's Own Pickaxe - NOTICIERO DE SANTANDER - NowDigital - NowPublic - Nowspots Inc. - NPeaches - NTB - NWE - Objectif Transition - OjingoLabs.com - OmegaJunior.Net - oMYmedia - OneFiftySeven, LLC - OneWorld - platform for south east europe Foundation - Online Tobago - Onlio, a.s. - open for organisations - Open Goldberg Variations - Open Humanities Press - Open Institute - Open Labs - Open Materials - Open State - Open-Xchange AG - openDemocracy.net - OpenLink Software - OpenSides - OpenSignalMaps - Orcades ltd. - Organizaţia Română pentru Drepturile de Utilizator - Organization United Youth - Organizing 2.0 - Orn.li - Ornell Software - Oryza, Pipal Communications Private Limited - OZNB Foundation - Ozone - Pakistan Curates - Palm Productions - Palmetto - Pangea - Coordinadora Comunicació per a la Cooperació - Papertank Limited - Parceld - Participatory Politics Foundation - PC & Pro Audio Service Center - PC Mod Squad - PC Savers - PCGURU - Peace, Love & Apple Pie - Peacemaven.com - Peer Assembly - Pencilcoders - people opinion! - Perceptive Computer Services CC - Perini - Perisys Pty Ltd - Phocus - PhotonFlash - Phraust Co. - pidder.com - PinCiti - PINGV - Pirate Party (Walloon Brabant - Belgium) - Pirate Party Australia - Pirate Party Denmark - Pirate Party of Belgium - Pirate Party of Croatia - Pittsburgh Community Television - Pivot Guild, LLC - Pixelhead Creative - Playout - PNM Abroad - Polar Ice Engineering Studios - Polarworld - Police State UK - POMP PRODUCTIONS - Positive People - Praxis Micro, LLC - Private Internet Access™ - problem solved computer repair - ProDataLab - Progressive Factory - Project Group Internet Policy of the Berlin Green Party - Project Meshnet - Promoseo.co.uk - Protect Our Freedoms - Proximus, Inc. - Pyrat.net - QScend Technologies - Quack's Echo - Queal Technology Services - Québec Ouvert - QuestionCopyright.org - Radar Research - Rambutan Records - Rap Genius - RATSS.org - RAWRtacular Productions - Real South Magazine - Realestate.co.nz Ltd - RecoEngine - Recollections Studio LLC - Red River Consultores - Redonfiles - Redwood Empire - RefreshAugusta - REGdom Servizi Internet srl - reinwarth idm consulting - Reitter Management Corporation - RELATIONICS - Residencymilestones.com - Reuben & Hunter - Reverse Phones Australia - Rewired State - Rhizome - Rizek - RJ2 - rlocone.com - RMI ELECTRONICA - Roatan Wallpaper - rob kimmel design - Robot Media - Rollermonkey Design Group - RootStrike - Rose Bowl Tavern - Rotex - RotorsOnline.com - Roughly Brilliant Digital Studios - Rubyx I.T. Solutions - S. Thommen Consulting - Saatchi & Saatchi (NZ) - SABOTIER Romain Raymond Gérard - Samtök um bíllausan lífsstíl - San Francisco Community Broadband Network - Savvy Panda - SBF (Social Brain Foundation) - SC Forbes Ventures VII - Scherr Technology - schokokeks.org GbR - Seazo studio - SEM Overhaul - Semacraft Consulting Partners Africa - Semantic Software Engineer - SenDiX Interactive - SEPo (search engine positioning) - SERIOUS WONDER MEDIA - serkoart LLC - Serrated Records - SF Circuits - SF MusicTech Summit - Share Foundation - Shelby.tv - SHiFT - Silverrack - Simplict Lab - SiteSteward, Inc. - skymia studios - SlideShare - Slightly Toasted - SlothBorg Technologies - Smalley Creative Blog - Smart Guy Media - smartHampton - SmartSys4Us - Smaxx Inc. - SMESH ENTERTAINMENT - Soaring Bird Enterprises - Social Edge - Social Innovation Camp - social move, Thailand - Society to Stop World War Three - Sociovant - Sociovant LLC - Soho Tech Labs - SOK Communication - solución creativa - Somethin' Else - Sonic.net - SOS BLOG - Soup Interactive - southshift - Southwest Wyoming Wireless Connect - SpacesSquared - Speculative Fiction Group - Spellbound Web - SPH Enterprizes LLC - Spirit Quest World - Spling - Spotflux - Sprettur - þróun og stjórnun ehf. - Springboard School System - St. Luke's Youth - Stack & Heap - Stardrive Intermedia - StartupCity Des Moines - Stas'M Corp. - Steam Communications - Stonecraft Inc. - STR Publishing - Streight Site Systems - Studio Black Flag - Studio Verde - stupidDOPE.com - Subcava Sonora - Subject 2 Discussion - Suits & Sandals, LLC - Suntrip Records - Sutorippu! - Swider Medeiros Haver LLP - Swipp - Symbiotisk ApS - Synapse Group - Systemcall.org - Taggs.co - TakeTracker - TAM & J - TCBE (Things Can Be Easier) - Tech Support Man, LLC - TechChange - technomoo - TechSpot - Techventures - TechVigilante - TecNet - Tecshell Desarrollo Web Profesional - Tekkish - Telecommunication Chamber of Ukraine - Telemedia Network Cakrawala - Temple of the Ancient Dragons - Tetherless Access - TGBNEWS - The ABC - The Baird Enterprise - The Cake Inc. - The Change Agent - The Customer's Voice - The Digital Development Group, Corp. - The Doxing Company - The Futures Agency - The Geek Domain, LLC - The Hermetic Library - The Highly Technical Doohickey Company - The In Arts NW - The Indie Shelter - The Kleptones - The London Picture Hanger - The Miami Valley School - The New Universalist Church Of God - The Next Web - The Phat Startup - The Prison Project - The Random Acts of Blindness - The Saxifrage School - The Sierra Madre Tattler - The Startup Car Inc. - The Treefort - The Tribe of the Strange - The Unholy American - The Waterman Chronicles - TheOrigin - Thespiphobia - TheWayoftheWeb - Thomas Owens Enterprises - Thompson Wealth Mgmt, Ltd - Threant Software - Three InfoSolutions - Thrivable - Thropos Ltd - Tiger Media - TimeToTest - tinas childminding service - TNL.net - Tomfoolery Pictures Ltd - Top 21 Systemhaus GmbH - Trabbu - TRAMAS Consultora - Trashbros - Trek computer systems - trend.nu, Inc. - Tribal Pictures - TridentEntertainment (Would like to be added as an individual as well) - Trikaya Communication - Trilobyte Games, LLC - Trippi & Associates - Tripwire Computers LLC - TrollCorp International - Truman Consulting Group - Tsares Technologies - TugaTech - Tusk - Tux-FreeHost - TV Mayenne - TVM: Student Television at McGill - Twisted Oak Studios Inc. - Two Gems Consulting Services - TwtrSymphony - Tyler Data Solutions - Uhurunet - Umzuzu - Unhosted - Uninter - UNIT411 - United Networks of the Internet - Universal Commonwealth - University of Trieste - Unknown Studio Productions Ltd - URCHN - Uru - V3 Cosplay Syndicate - Vemba - VerbalizeIt - Vernier Bondy Blog - VersoBit - VEVIT LIMITED - VideoBlurb - Vidmaker - Viet Tan - Viktorix Innovative - Village Telco - Virtual Asylum - Virtual-Info - Visionary Software Solutions LLC - VividFront - VizPro Creative - Voice Blogging Project, Blog Action Day - Voile-RC - VoxAudi - W. P. Shank llc. - Waag Society - Walton Hospitality - Wan4All - Wanted Webs - Waqas Group of Companies - Warrior Fusion - We Are Change / Infowar Designs - Web Design By Michael Froseth - Web Funters - web4life - WEBCMF FUNGAL - Websailors - weo.no - West Of Utopia Unlimited Productions - West Virginia Disc Golf Assoc. llc - Whitenboard - wikiDOMO unmedia - wikiHow - Wikiotics Foundation - WikiQuals - William y Juan Co. - Wind River Inc - WinSpark Network - Wise Man Say - Wolfe Family Enterprises, LLC - Work Department - Working Class Press - Working Holiday Starter - worklifeimaging.com - wraycomcom - Writing Forward - Writopia Lab - WyzCo Group Inc - Xerdt Media LLC - XL Hydrocarbon Assets, LLC. - Yado LLC - YAWAM (Yet Another Website About Music) - Yeehhaa.com - You Wealth Revolution - Young Subber Team - ysance - Zefir - Zeiden Media - Zulius - Zurker Inc. - Zysys - Инициативная группа граждан За свободный интернет пространства (The initiative group of citizens for free Internet space) On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Wolfgang and all, as the coordinated of QuoVadis IGF, I Adam open to such > suggestions. > > Any specific names or points to add to the current WS proposal ? > Thanks > Izumi > > 2012年7月3日火曜日 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de: > > To avoid duplication or working in parallel I propose to organize the Quo >> Vadis workshop as a joint event IGC & DC. >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) [mailto: >> wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at] >> Gesendet: Di 03.07.2012 14:46 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm >> Betreff: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom >> >> >> >> What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more >> declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of >> 2010 by a group of NGOs and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of >> 2012 by Praxis think tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. >> >> >> >> It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on >> Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit >> the effects of such efforts. >> >> >> >> Wolfgang Benedek >> >> >> >> Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek >> >> Institute for International Law and International Relations >> >> University of Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15, A4 >> >> A-8010 Graz >> >> Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 >> >> Fax: +43/316/380/9455 >> >> >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Juli 2012 06:57 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom >> >> >> >> Most of you have probably seen the Declaration of Internet Freedom that >> is going around; see http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom. >> >> It's not very good. >> >> For one thing, it's very high-level and vague, so that if you look at the >> discussions, people are making all sorts of extrapolations from it like "if >> we have the ability to save something on our hard drives, we should have >> the right to freely copy and share it", arguing about whether anonymity is >> or is not included, etc. It's just pretty sloppy and unhelpful. >> >> For another, although a lot of groups have signed on to it, it seems to >> have been developed by a fairly narrow segment of US-based groups and >> entrepreneurs, and there was no serious attempt to reach out ahead of its >> launch yesterday. Even a lot of people who are usually in the loop hadn't >> heard about it until the last minute. At least one major European digital >> rights group has decided not to sign on. >> >> Also, it contains no explicit mention of human rights, and the clear >> emphasis is on the interests of the Internet industry rather than users or >> non-user citizens/consumers (note the emphasis given, for such a short >> document, to the principle "don't punish innovators for their users' >> actions"). Whilst I agree with the principle, it's not the first thing I'd >> include. >> >> All that being said, these are just my views. Does the IGC want to sign >> onto it? >> >> -- >> >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> 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 >> >> Follow @ConsumersInt >> >> Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice < >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecology2001 at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 14:27:21 2012 From: ecology2001 at gmail.com (Robert Pollard) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:27:21 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <4FF3B4DE.1010100@ciroap.org> References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <4FF3B4DE.1010100@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of 2010 can be found at http://www.saladeprensa.org/art988.htm On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 03/07/12 20:46, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > wrote: > > What I wanted to point out as well is that we already have two more > declarations under this name, the Geneva Declaration on Internet Freedom of > 2010 by a group of NGOs > > > Do you have a link for that? I found http://www.genevasummit.org/media/20, > but it is dead, nor is it on archive.org. > > > and the Guiding Principles of Internet Freedom of 2012 by Praxis think > tank of Estonia, which are both more elaborate. > > > Thanks, I added this to the links page at http://igcaucus.org/links and > added years. Am I still missing any? Feel free to add this list to the > IRP site too, or better, link to the IGC's copy. BTW, does everyone know > that the IRP's main website is down (but the charter site is up)? Not sure > about the mailing list, but I'm cc'ing to it in case it is up. > > > **** > It would be good to bring all these initiatives together and the DC on > Internet Rights and Principles would be a suitable place for doing so.**** > > ** ** > > Unfortunately, people seem prefer to work in parallel which might limit > the effects of such efforts. > > > Indeed. Part of the problem is that whereas there are strong global > action networks on issues like IP and the environment, in IG we have only > the IGC, and it is invisible to (or at least ignored by) large parts of the > Internet activist community. > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer* > 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 > > Follow @ConsumersInt > > Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 14:30:38 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:30:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So instead of expanding the authority of the ITU, you propose to expand the authority of the IETF? I thought IETF was a technical standards organization. What makes the techies who populate it an appropriate authority to deal with the geopolitical and policy issues of Internet governance? Certainly technical expertise is necessary and welcome in a MS forum, but the idea of grating an EC proposal onto the IETF, and drawing bad analogies between running code and policy deliberations, doesn’t strike me as helpful. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:50 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online > > Deal all, > > In regard to my "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" counter-proposal to > the idea of an increased role for ITU in Internet Governance, I have the > initial Internet-Draft online now at > > http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 > > Please let me know what you think, preferably by posting on this list. > > (Note: This Internet-Draft will not actually show up in the IETF's list > of Internet-Drafts until July 30 since we're currently in the pre-IETF- > meeting phase for IETF 84 in Vancouver, during which no new Internet- > Drafts are processed.) > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jul 10 14:37:11 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:37:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E385@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1918259279-1340398426-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1303430091-@b1.c5.bise6.blackberry> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E385@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3524@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > The official > site has a visa section, but among the pages and thousands of > words the only relevant information as of now is this: > > "This page will be updated with information regarding issuance of the > visa upon arrival and visa fee waiver. > For VISA assistant, please contact visainquiries at igf2012.az" > > I have sent an email to that address. > I will let you all know what the response is. > [Milton L Mueller] Just a followup: there has never been a response to the June 21 email I sent to the visainquiries at igf2012.az address. It is now July 10. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 14:42:28 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:42:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries > like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply > for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. > > About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs > > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every > registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is this: Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. Q: How can I apply for a visa? A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still don't know. Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 14:45:53 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:45:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FFC7861.9060503@cafonso.ca> The information site seems to use a sort of Borat-like English, so at times it is a bit hard to interpret.... --c.a. On 07/10/2012 03:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries >> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply >> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. >> >> About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs >> >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> >> []s >> Joao Carlos Caribe > > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is this: > > Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? > > A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . > > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > > Q: How can I apply for a visa? > > A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. > > To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. > Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still don't know. > > Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website." > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 14:46:16 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:46:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] WTPF May 2013 In-Reply-To: <4FF986F1.60800@itforchange.net> References: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEFE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FF986F1.60800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank you for considering my posts. I can say it is not only Brazil who has been trying to make ITU’s processes more transparent. In the case of WCIT, the United Arab Emirates themselves proposed to ITU Council last week the open access to the conference’s documents. I believe this move wouldn’t happen without civil society and media’s lobby, but the goal might be achieved, anyway. (One can argue on the interests of UAE in doing so, but it is hard to deny the efficacy of the host being the sponsor of this proposal.) The rationale behind Brazil defending free access to ITU material (much broader than WCIT docs) is also expressed here: http://economialegal.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/1952/. Japan, Sweden, US and many other countries seem to share similar opinions, but with different perspectives. First of all, it is important to clarify that I work for Anatel (the Brazilian telecom regulator), a frequent stakeholder at the ITU who is not usually present at WSIS fora, IGF, ICANN, CSTD, UNGA, OECD and others. If you’ve gone through the original Brazilian contribution (WTPF-IEG/1/4 ), you might have noticed that we referred to some of Kurbalija’s material. In particular, I have cited his views of a “narrow” vs “broad” approach to IG. If one considers his several IG baskets, we could say that the ITU has been working on IG issues for quite some time (if not, since the Union’s creation). Our idea is to organize this IG debate within the ITU, and the establishment of its own principles would be a good way to start. Like CGI.br, others have been this have been doing this ( http://igcaucus.org/links), so it shouldn’t be extremely hard to find reliable sources for the job. When we (Brazil) wrote this contribution, we did not think of the ITU as the place to decide on global Internet related public policies global nor on “enhanced cooperation”. In fact, there wasn’t a text for the Secretary General WTPF Report yet. We didn’t discuss DNS management, scarce resources, numbering allocation nor any specific IG issue. We just thought of a way of making the process more transparent, considering all the misinformation we could find about ITU’s goals on the IG. Why not to make it clear? Considering that the WTPF will count on public attendance, it could be a useful environment. It is not a perfect solution because the public might not have the right to speak (since this is a decision from the 2010 Plenipotentiary Conference, it is hard to expect any change now). FYI, Sweden has been very active on the first meeting of CWG-Internet and raised strong proposals in favor of “open consultations” with external stakeholders. They propose that the open consultations do take place with the physical presence of the stakeholders. Brazil and many others have supported this idea, but it is uncertain to happen at the group’s second meeting. As I mentioned, Brazil doesn’t see the CWG-Internet nor the ITU as the space for “enhanced cooperation” at this moment. We haven’t discussed internally whether CWG would compete with a UN CIRP or any other body. Anyway, I cannot guarantee these concerns will not be brought by other countries. I guess you’re right in your statements. And that is why I keep on arguing with my national folks that that ignoring the ITU within the broader IG debate is wrong. Denying its existence or technical and political influence will leads us to uninformed decisions and an incomplete view of the global negotiation scenario. In Brazil, we have been closer (then) and farther (now) from the ITU on IG, and that might be the reason why we haven’t discussed the possibility of taking the CWG as the target of “enhanced cooperation”. From my perspective, some Brazilian relevant stakeholders strongly oppose to the ITU at any Internet process on principle, and I believe this is a naïve standpoint. Anyway, the CWG is still on its birth, with a long list of possible issues to approach. The most important question is deciding upon the “open consultation” process and the modality of external stakeholders inputs. I have just been informed that Council decided that the CWG will hold online consultations for all stakeholders only, instead of physical meetings. Once again I thank you for sharing your thoughts. Abraços, Sérgio 2012/7/8 parminder > Dear Sergio, > > Thanks for sharing these documents, and for your overall efforts to open > ITU documents to the general public. > > I read Brazil's inputs to the ITU SG's report with great interest. I have > a specific question regarding it. In recommending to the ITU that it > develops its own principles for Internet governance, and referring to the > Brazilian principles in this regard, does Brazil not look at the ITU as the > place to discuss and decide on global Internet related public policies, > which is the definitional mandate given by Tunis agenda to the process of > 'enhanced cooperation'? (Such is the work done by OECD's CCICP, e.g. > developing as it did recently Principles for Internet Policy Making) > > If indeed Brazil (and the same question applies to other actors) is now > so intent to let ITU's CWG-Internet be that space of 'enhanced > cooperation', any discussion on whether a UN CIRP (minus any oversight > role) for fulfilling the non CIR side of enhanced cooperation mandate > becomes, to that extent, redundant. As I read WTFP documents, and I > recommend others interested in the enhanced cooperation also to read them, > it is apparent that the ITU's Council Working Group on International > Internet Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) seems poised to take > up the role that some envisaged for a UN CIRP like body (minus CIR > oversight role). > > I know that CWG-Internet does not take binding decisions but has only > recommendatory role to the ITU Council. However CIRP was supposed to have > exactly an identical role vis a vis the UN GA, which would have to follow > up to make actual implementable decisions etc. I see both ITU's > CWG-Internet and UN CIRP having more or less identical advisory and > facilitative roles to respective intergov decision making bodies. As one > reads WTFP documents, one sees that the envisaged subject areas for the two > entities (one existing and other proposed) is becoming increasingly > similar. > > I pose this question especially because Brazil has reserved its judgement > whether to support a UN CIRP like structure or not, and I am trying to > explore the implications of this position. If in not supporting a CIRP like > body one means just to let ITU's CWG-Internet take up more or less exactly > that work, it raises some basic questions on the nature of reservations > that Brazil, and others in civil society (including from Brazil), had or > have vis a vis the CIRP proposal. Are the reservations really vis a vis > multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency as has apparently > looked to be the case? But how do these reservation hold in encouraging, or > even allowing, ITU's CWG-Internet to take up more or less exactly the same > role? > > The proposed design of UN CIRP is by far better on all these three counts > (multistakeholderism, participative-ness and transparency) than ITU's > CWG-Internet. Secondly, ITU is basically a body with a technical mandate, > and corresponding mindset, which is evident in its processes and > perspectives. It has no real background and expertise in social, cultural, > economic and political issues. Internet, especially from civil society's > point of view, should first be seen from social etc angles, and ITU, in my > view, is not the best place to do so. Actors and institutions with generic > social, cultural, economic and political backgrounds are better placed to > deal with global IG and its wider public policy questions. These two sets > of reasons is why I prefer a UN CIRP like body to ITU's CWG-Internet, and I > am open to a discussion about the relative merits of the two. > > However, I can see now that the chances are that ITU's CWG-Internet would > take over the proposed role of CIRP in the area of 'enhanced cooperation' > as defined in the Tunis agenda. It may be a creeping acquisition but it is > well planned and resourced. (Without going into the merits of it, Toure's > team deserves appreciation for such a good plan and its impeccable > execution.) ITU may even be able to bring more institutional resources and > certainly greater institutional focus to the 'enhanced cooperation' > function. Solid institutionalisation around this function is clearly well > on its way. (With WSIS forum and all, also providing the otherwise missing > social, economic, cultural political basis.) > > I bring up this point because I believe that in politics acts of > omission are often as important as those of commission. Civil society may > need to make a practical choice; Is ITU's CWG-Internet the right place for > (non CIR oversight) 'enhanced cooperation' function or is a new more open > and participative body with an initial socio-economic-cultural focus (like > UN CIRP) a more appropriate body. In default of such a resolution, we may > simply be agreeing to ITU CWG-Internet takinge up this role, which it > clearly is taking up. > > Although, whether because it is being careful, at least in the beginning, > or becuase ITU by its nature focuses more on technical issues, the list of > issues proposed to be covered still are *relatively* technical even when > the express intent is to jump headlong into the broad area of International > Internet related public policies. Now, if CWG-Internet is indeed going to > be the 'enhanced cooperation' space, which to me looks increasingly likely, > I consider this narrow close-to-technical focus unfortunate. To illustrate > what I mean, OECD's Committee on ICCP is right now discussing 'economics of > personal data on the Internet', which is one of the most key and formative > factors and features of what the Internet is and would be. I would like a > globally democratic space to discuss this all important global public > policy issue, but dont see a place to do so. Should this issue finally > somehow fit CWG-Internet's agenda? While its mandate seems broad to include > all global Internet public policy issues, I do not see ITU's CWG-Internet > as the best place for this discussion. But if not here, then where? It is > too important an issue not be addressed globally. > > I also find it unfortunate that there is not much will on this civil > society like, I mean the IGC, to discuss enhanced cooperation issue beyond > the CIR oversight issue (on which we had a very good discussion). As I have > said, I find these larger global Internet related public policy issues as > of rather greater significance that CIR oversight. However, there seems not > much interest here to discuss this more important part of enhanced > cooperation and its institutional gaps and requirements. We seem to be too > CIRs fixated. > > parminder > > > On Thursday 28 June 2012 10:36 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. wrote: > > http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx > > For the time being, most WTPF-13 docs are open. > > > Abraços, > Sérgio > > > Informal Experts Group > > In accordance with the Council Decision 562, > the Secretary-General will convene a balanced,* informal group of > experts(IEG)* - who are active in preparing for the Forum in their own > country - to assist in the successive stages of the preparatory process. > The proposed deadline for nominations for this group of experts is 15 May > 2012. The* schedule *for publishing the Secretary-General’s report to > WTPF-13 is included in Circular letter DM 12/1003. > > A *progress report *on the fifth World Telecommunication/Information and > Communication Technology Policy Forum on Internet-related public policy > issues is included in Circular letter DM 12/1016 > . > > > > FIRST MEETING > *5 June 2012, ITU Headquarters, Geneva* > > - WTPF-IEG/1/1 : Draft > Agenda > > - WTPF-IEG/1/2 : > First draft of Secretary-General's report > > - WTPF-IEG/1/3 : > Comments from the Russian federation on the First draft of > Secretary-General's report. > > - WTPF-IEG/1/4 :Comments > from Brazil on the First draft of Secretary-General's report > > - WTPF-IEG/1/5 :Comments > from ARIN on the First draft of Secretary-General's report > > - WTPF-IEG/1/6 : > Comments from the United States on the First draft of Secretary-General's > report > > - WTPF-IEG/1/7 : > Comments from Internet Society (ISOC) > > - WTPF-IEG/1/8 : > Invitation letter > > - *WTPF-IEG/1/9* *: **Preliminary > Second Draft of the Secretary-General’s Report > > * > - WTPF-IEG/1/10 :* *List > of announced experts > > - WTPF-IEG/1/11 :* *Report > of the Chairman on the first meeting of the informal expert group (IEG) > > - WTPF-09/2 : Rules of > procedure of the fourth World Telecommunication Policy Forum (WTPF-09) > > > > > 2012/6/27 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> >> FYI >> >> wolfgang >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Jul 10 14:49:37 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:49:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> As far as I can tell in the US one would need to travel to DC or LA (or pay one of those excruciatingly expensive visa services) to get a visa. not as onerous as Traveling to Argentina from Brazil, but still a pain. > If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. what is a "note verbal" beyond hearsay? avri On 10 Jul 2012, at 14:42, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries >> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply >> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. >> >> About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs >> >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> >> []s >> Joao Carlos Caribe > > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is this: > > Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? > > A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . > > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > > Q: How can I apply for a visa? > > A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. > > To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. > Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still don't know. > > Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hasansf at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 14:57:30 2012 From: hasansf at gmail.com (Faisal Hasan) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems to be a very difficult place to go. I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as travelling there would be a pain for most people. If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the organizers will keep this in mind. Thanks Faisal Bangladesh On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > As far as I can tell in the US one would need to travel to DC or LA (or > pay one of those excruciatingly expensive visa services) to get a visa. > not as onerous as Traveling to Argentina from Brazil, but still a pain. > > > If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will > be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the > Host Country via their website. > > what is a "note verbal" beyond hearsay? > > avri > > On 10 Jul 2012, at 14:42, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries > >> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply > >> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. > >> > >> About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs > >> > >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > >> > >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every > >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > >> > >> []s > >> Joao Carlos Caribe > > > > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is > this: > > > > Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? > > > > A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . > > > > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > > > > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every > registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > > > > Q: How can I apply for a visa? > > > > A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive > your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your > country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been > approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. > > > > To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. > > Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still > don't know. > > > > Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided > to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country > via their website." > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 14:58:01 2012 From: judyokite at gmail.com (Judy Okite) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:58:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <4FFC7861.9060503@cafonso.ca> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FFC7861.9060503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thank you, Milton, All, it is important to get this information before hand , e.g for the likes of myself, we have to get a schengen visa to travel to Baku. it will be good to know which equivalent embassy/country will be issuing, the visa. Kind Regards, “Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible” Edwin Land On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The information site seems to use a sort of Borat-like English, so at > times it is a bit hard to interpret.... > > --c.a. > > On 07/10/2012 03:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries >>> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply >>> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. >>> >>> About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs >>> >>> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >>> >>> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >>> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >>> >>> []s >>> Joao Carlos Caribe >> >> [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is this: >> >> Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? >> >> A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . >> >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> >> Q: How can I apply for a visa? >> >> A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. >> >> To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. >> Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still don't know. >> >> Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website." >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From femlists at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 19:29:51 2012 From: femlists at gmail.com (Magaly Pazello) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:29:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> Message-ID: Dear all, It is more than necessary the to take action in relation to this matter. The IGF secretariat has to establish a serious agreement between UN and the Azeri government to avoid this kind of trouble/pain/mess etc. Something that make possible to every registred participants to get their visas upon arrival at the airport. It is a UN forum or not? Magaly 2012/7/10 Faisal Hasan > Dear all, > I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling > to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. > Visa procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan > seems to be a very difficult place to go. > > I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > travelling there would be a pain for most people. > If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should > be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the > organizers will keep this in mind. > > Thanks > Faisal > Bangladesh > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> As far as I can tell in the US one would need to travel to DC or LA (or >> pay one of those excruciatingly expensive visa services) to get a visa. >> not as onerous as Traveling to Argentina from Brazil, but still a pain. >> >> > If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will >> be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the >> Host Country via their website. >> >> what is a "note verbal" beyond hearsay? >> >> avri >> >> On 10 Jul 2012, at 14:42, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries >> >> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply >> >> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. >> >> >> >> About the letters for visa support: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs >> >> >> >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> >> >> >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >> >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> >> >> >> []s >> >> Joao Carlos Caribe >> > >> > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is >> this: >> > >> > Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? >> > >> > A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . >> > >> > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> > >> > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> > >> > Q: How can I apply for a visa? >> > >> > A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive >> your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your >> country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been >> approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. >> > >> > To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. >> > Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still >> don't know. >> > >> > Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be >> provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host >> Country via their website." >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 19:44:49 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:44:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Based on very limited knowledge of UN/visas etc, yes, I am pretty sure a "note verbal" will get you a visa on arrival. But this best in writing from the secretariat and hosts. Perhaps a MAG member could ask for clarification. Adam On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The answer about the letters for support visa, so for some countries >> like Brazil is complicated such we need to travel to Argentina do apply >> for one since we don't has a consular representation here at Brazil. >> >> About the letters for visa support: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/faqs >> >> Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? >> >> A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every >> registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. >> >> []s >> Joao Carlos Caribe > > [Milton L Mueller] Thanks Joao. Actually the complete information is this: > > Q: Do I need a visa to attend the IGF meeting in Baku? > > A: Please check the visa requirements on the Host Country's website . > > Q: How can I get a support letter for my visa if I need it? > > A: The official confirmation of registration sent by email to every registrant will be accepted as enough proof for visa requests. > > Q: How can I apply for a visa? > > A: If there is a Azerbaijani embassy in your country, you can receive your visa from the embassy. If there is no Azerbaijani embassy in your country, a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website. > > To me, this information is still very unclear and not very helpful. > Can you get a visa at the airport when you arrive, or not? We still don't know. > > Frankly, I have no idea what this means: "a note verbal will be provided to the participants that have been approved by contacting the Host Country via their website." > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Jul 10 22:48:22 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:22 +0700 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> Message-ID: <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> +1 On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > Dear all, > I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am > struggling to find information about the visa procedure for > Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa procedure for us for any country is > already difficult and Azerbaijan seems to be a very difficult place to go. > > I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > travelling there would be a pain for most people. > If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective,*the venue > should be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope > next time the organizers will keep this in mind. > * > Thanks > Faisal > Bangladesh *Emphasis added* by me, Norbert -- Norbert Klein Phnom Penh, Cambodia nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 11 01:24:32 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:24:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> (message from Milton L Mueller on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:30:38 +0000) References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > So instead of expanding the authority of the ITU, you propose to > expand the authority of the IETF? No. ECTF is in no way intended to be part of the IETF or under its authority. The only strong relationship to any existing Internet governance body or forum is to the IGF. I suspect that Milton's misunderstanding was caused by the required boilerplate text which must be present on the first page of an Internet-Draft even when, like in this case, the draft is explicitly not an IETF document. So I have now removed this boilerplate text from the copy of the draft at http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 - but it will of course be present in the copy that will go into the Internet-Draft repository, there's no way around that. 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Jul 11 02:54:25 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:54:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). izumi ----------------- Dear IGF Secretariat, Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where there is no Azeri Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where they live (US, China etc.) There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. best, izumi ---------- 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : > +1 > > > > On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > > Dear all, > I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling > to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa > procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems > to be a very difficult place to go. > > I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > travelling there would be a pain for most people. > If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should > be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the > organizers will keep this in mind. > > Thanks > Faisal > Bangladesh > > > Emphasis added by me, > > Norbert > -- > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Jul 11 04:37:57 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:37:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Declaration of Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <4FF27BB5.5010303@ciroap.org> <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0315408761@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCF38@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <32EE06A9-3E1D-43F2-AC50-FEB0A9AC1503@ciroap.org> On 10/07/2012, at 7:41 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > No one person or group 'owns' the internet, should determine how it is governed, or has the mandate to create the set of internet principles. Instead a willingness to enter into conversations, to understand what came before and improve from one's own starting point should be a defining factor with which to judge initiatives. In the context of principles, I am of the opinion that we should not only allow, but encourage a thousand connected flowers to bloom. And that is exactly what is happening, in many different and varied forums (the compiled list is a great resource - thanks Jeremy for putting this together). Seeing how some of those initiatives may converge and support each other I think is the next step. I broadly agree, however there are some purposes for which a half-dozen statements or declarations are not as useful as one. In particular this applies to talking with policy-makers. Their attention spans are limited, and they will read one (short) document, but won't read six. Actually, you've said the same thing yourself about the original IRP charter. At last year's IGC meeting at the IGF there was broad agreement that we should develop a short statement on Internet governance principles for the following year's meeting, on which we would consult with broader civil society, and to advocate for the IGF to use this, together with the various governmental and intergovernmental principles documents, as inputs into the development of a multi-stakeholder set of principles perhaps for the 2013 meeting. All the other civil society statements of rights and principles would be inputs into the development of such a civil society statements for presentation at the IGF, but it wouldn't be useful to try to present all half-dozen of them there. An alternative to drafting something new for the IGF would be to choose one of the existing documents and table that, but I don't think that as they stand, either the Internet Declaration or the punchy IRP principles (for example) have the same emphasis on Internet governance processes that I thought would be contained in the IGC's statement (Wolfgang, who is leading that process, will correct me if I'm wrong). A third alternative is to work with you and the other groups on improving the Internet Declaration, and maybe folding the IGC effort into it, so that it would be suitable for us to rally around at the IGF and in engaging with policy-makers in other fora. As you know (but some won't) this is one of the options that could be discussed in a planned side-meeting and teleconference at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. There will be other online and offline opportunities between now and WCIT to continue and broaden the conversation. More on this below. > To my mind, there are certainly things that are missing from the Declaration. For example, whilst all of the principles are rights based (hence why Amnesty International and we signed on) the words 'human rights' are not mentioned. It does not include some of the elements of the 10 Internet Rights and Principles. 'Life, liberty and security' for example is missing. It also does not recognize properly the principles and documents that have come before, including WSIS commitments. In its defense it says "We are joining an international movement to defend our freedoms because we believe that they are worth fighting for." There is some momentum towards addressing these concerns (including putting or referencing other initiatives in the Preamble) and I with others have been pushing for this. Your explanation of the process has been very helpful; in this light I think that the main mistake that the drafters made was just failing to clearly say "this is draft number zero". It was announced with maybe a bit too much fanfare for a draft zero, but then again everything Access does comes with a lot of fanfare. ;-) (Seriously though, I say that with much admiration. The way you guys rally people is amazing. It would be impossible for many of the more established NGOs to get as many sign-ons in such short a time as you have.) > Getting buy in, let alone consensus as we all know can be a total nightmare. It can lead to paralysis, but I think its worth trying. I also want to note, that many groups haven't ever heard of the IGC, the IRP Dynamic Coalition or Enhanced Cooperation - why would they have? We need to engage more people (particularly Americans?) in the WSIS process, to understand the commitments and to take the IGF process forward (incidentally I dont think we need a new IGF or otherwise). One last point on this - with so many active and informed individuals on this list, some of the conversations can be pretty overwhelming/intimidating, so its hard to invite new people here. > > I was also thinking that the IGF might be the right time to try to bring the stakeholders together. A quo vardis meeting (let's not call it that!) or IRP meeting would make sense. I would love to be part of that. I also think that there is lots of room for cross pollination before then and look forward to discussions online ahead of a face to face meeting. Sam's suggestions of curation and coordination should be encouraged. Yes, apart from what APC and ISOC have planned, there is support for another "big tent" meeting between now and WCIT (and probably before the IGF, but not in Azerbaijan) that will bring IGF/WSIS/development people and US/digital rights/technical community people together. I'm in discussions about this with some supporters and that's part of what we'll talk about in the APrIGF meeting and call. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Wed Jul 11 05:09:28 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:09:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Message-ID: Dear all, thanks, Sala, for the great first draft. Wolfgang Benedek and would like to submit a substantially revised version for the list's consideration. In particular, we have added specific language quoting from the HRC Resolution on Internet rights, have expanded the section on legitimate exceptions to freedom of expression (namely the three-part-test) and have highlighted the importance of the Special Rapporteur's 2011 report elaborating on the reach of these exceptions. Since they were substantial, we attach a .docx version with visible changes. Kind regards Matthias Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Statement on Azerbaijan - draft The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect human rights in Azerbaijan. Notably he recommended decriminalizing defamation and allowing civil society to operate without restrictions. He further called upon Azerbaijan to end the arrests of journalists and those with differing political views. We reaffirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non-member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva when it co-sponsored the Council's first resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, The Resolution affirms that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one's choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".[3] Welcoming this commitment, we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment for online and offline expression where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be held and expressed. As Azerbaijan acceded to the ICCPR on 13 August 1992, it is obliged to respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant and provide only for those limitations which are legitimate under it. Article 19 protects the rights of everyone to freedom of expression, including the 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 rights. Restrictions may only be provided by law and must be necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This restriction is to be interpreted in light of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, of 2011. Thus any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must be provided by a law that is clear and accessible to everyone, it must aim to ensure one of the legitimate purpose set out in Article 19, and, importantly, must be necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. We would also like to remind Azerbaijan that, in the words, of Special Rapporteur La Rue, "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, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application."[4] We would finally like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan 2 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 3 Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Juli 2012 20:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All, Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. The Draft Statement reads as follows:- The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one's choice. This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. Ends ________________________________ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement Kind Regards, Sala -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ -- Mag. Dr. 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 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ ________________________________ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. [4] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - draft statement Azerbaijan (rev) WB MCK.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25963 bytes Desc: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - draft statement Azerbaijan (rev) WB MCK.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jul 11 07:02:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:02:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Tim, Mathias K and Wolfgang B and all, Thank you for the contribution and they will be factored into the second draft along with Tim and other comments and contributions. Your contributions help make the Statement better. Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear all, **** > > ** ** > > thanks, Sala, for the great first draft. Wolfgang Benedek and would like > to submit a substantially revised version for the list’s consideration. In > particular, we have added specific language quoting from the HRC Resolution > on Internet rights, have expanded the section on legitimate exceptions to > freedom of expression (namely the three-part-test) and have highlighted the > importance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2011 report elaborating on the reach > of these exceptions. Since they were substantial, we attach a .docx version > with visible changes. **** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Matthias **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* * Statement on Azerbaijan - > draft* > > ** ** > > The *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* wishes to express its > grave concern over the reports[1] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftn1> of violation > of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan.**** > > We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, > Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of > observations and recommendations[2] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftn2> such as the > need to strengthen and protect human rights in Azerbaijan. Notably he > recommended decriminalizing defamation and allowing civil society to > operate without restrictions. He further called upon Azerbaijan to end the > arrests of journalists and those with differing political views. We > reaffirm these recommendations.**** > > Whilst Azerbaijan is a non-member state of the United Nations Human Rights > Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government > of Azerbaijan at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights > Council in Geneva when it co-sponsored the Council’s first resolution on > the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, > The Resolution affirms that “the same rights that people have offline > must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which > is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s > choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of > Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > ”.[3] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftn3> **** > > Welcoming this commitment, we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment for > online and offline expression where diverse and conflicting views on issues > can be held and expressed.**** > > As Azerbaijan acceded to the ICCPR on 13 August 1992, it is obliged to > respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant and provide only for those > limitations which are legitimate under it. Article 19 protects the rights > of everyone to freedom of expression, including the 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 rights. **** > > Restrictions may only be provided by law and must be necessary for respect > of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national > security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. > This restriction is to be interpreted in light of the Report of the Special > Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of > opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, of 2011. Thus any limitation to the > right to freedom of expression must be provided by a law that is clear > and accessible to everyone, it must aim to ensure one of the legitimate > purpose set out in Article 19, and, importantly, must be necessary and the > least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim.**** > > We would also like to remind Azerbaijan that, in the words, of Special > Rapporteur La Rue, “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, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, > including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive > application.”[4] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftn4> **** > > We would finally like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review > its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of > expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is > encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic > society.**** > > ** ** > > [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan**** > > 2 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497**** > > 3 Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human > rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 > (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC.**** > > 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the > right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. > A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, > para. 24.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *Im Auftrag von *Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Gesendet:* Samstag, 07. Juli 2012 20:26 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* coordinators at igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights]* > *** > > **** > > Dear All,**** > > **** > > Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald > Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, > Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International > lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and > no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. > **** > > **** > > The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can > comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments > as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to > gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input.**** > > **** > > The Draft Statement reads as follows:-**** > > **** > > The *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus* wishes to express its > grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil > society in Azerbaijan.**** > > We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, > Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of > observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and > protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like > decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without > restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political > perspectives. We affirm these recommendations.**** > > **** > > Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights > Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government > of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United > Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where > together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the > protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice.*** > * > > **** > > This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where > diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are > robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse.**** > > **** > > We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions > provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of > Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which > Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom.**** > > **** > > We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its > legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, > freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as > these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society.**** > > **** > > *Ends***** > ------------------------------ > > [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan**** > > [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497**** > > [3] > http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > Kind Regards,**** > > **** > > Sala**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard)**** > > ** ** > > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen**** > > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz**** > > ** ** > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich**** > > ** ** > > T | +43 316 380 6711 **** > > M | +43 676 701 7175 **** > > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** > > Blog | Twitter| > Facebook | Google+ > **** > > ** ** > > --**** > > Mag. Dr. 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 **** > > M | +43 676 701 7175 **** > > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** > > Blog | Twitter| > Facebook | Google+ > **** > > ** ** > > ------------------------------ > > [1] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftnref1> > http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan**** > > [2] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftnref2> > https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497**** > > [3] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftnref3> Human Rights Council, The promotion, > protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July > 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC.**** > > [4] <#138754d328ff2c8c__ftnref4> Report of the Special Rapporteur on the > promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, > Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, > para. 24.**** > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Jul 11 07:45:58 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:45:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at the Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. >From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in August... ... Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being negotiated. o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make “process as easy as possible”. o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This will be expedited for IGF participants. o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained upon arrival” by IGF participants. o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months before event (Aug 2012) regards Robert On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). > > izumi > > ----------------- > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > there is no Azeri > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where > they live (US, China etc.) > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > best, > > izumi > > ---------- > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : >> +1 >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems >> to be a very difficult place to go. >> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the >> organizers will keep this in mind. >> >> Thanks >> Faisal >> Bangladesh >> >> >> Emphasis added by me, >> >> Norbert >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- >>> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jul 11 08:20:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:20:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. Best Regards, Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at the > Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. > > > From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in > August... > > ... > > Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... > > - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being > negotiated. > > o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make “process > as easy as possible”. > > o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This will be > expedited for IGF participants. > > o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained upon > arrival” by IGF participants. > > o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months > before event (Aug 2012) > > > regards > > Robert > > On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to > us). > > > > izumi > > > > ----------------- > > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > > there is no Azeri > > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far > from where > > they live (US, China etc.) > > > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry > airport? > > > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > > > best, > > > > izumi > > > > ---------- > > > > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am > struggling > >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. > Visa > >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan > seems > >> to be a very difficult place to go. > >> > >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. > >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue > should > >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time > the > >> organizers will keep this in mind. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Faisal > >> Bangladesh > >> > >> > >> Emphasis added by me, > >> > >> Norbert > >> -- > >> Norbert Klein > >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia > >> nhklein at gmx.net > >> http://www.thinking21.org > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jul 11 08:37:54 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:37:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> Hi, If it is not mean to be be part of the IETF, what is the reason for an Internet-draft. I too was confused and was planning to ask you if you had contact with the General AD yet, since that is where this would need to be, if it were in the IETF. But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an I-D and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? thanks avri On 11 Jul 2012, at 01:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> So instead of expanding the authority of the ITU, you propose to >> expand the authority of the IETF? > > No. ECTF is in no way intended to be part of the IETF or under its > authority. The only strong relationship to any existing Internet > governance body or forum is to the IGF. > > I suspect that Milton's misunderstanding was caused by the required > boilerplate text which must be present on the first page of an > Internet-Draft even when, like in this case, the draft is explicitly > not an IETF document. So I have now removed this boilerplate text > from the copy of the draft at http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1 > - but it will of course be present in the copy that will go into the > Internet-Draft repository, there's no way around that. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Wed Jul 11 08:43:05 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:43:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com>,,<4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net>,,, Message-ID: +1 Sala.RgdsGrace Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:20:42 +1200 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; rguerra at privaterra.org Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. Best Regards,Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at the Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. >From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in August... ... Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being negotiated. o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make “process as easy as possible”. o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This will be expedited for IGF participants. o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained upon arrival” by IGF participants. o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months before event (Aug 2012) regards Robert On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). > > izumi > > ----------------- > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > there is no Azeri > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where > they live (US, China etc.) > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > best, > > izumi > > ---------- > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : >> +1 >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems >> to be a very difficult place to go. >> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the >> organizers will keep this in mind. >> >> Thanks >> Faisal >> Bangladesh >> >> >> Emphasis added by me, >> >> Norbert >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- >>> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and 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.TamanikaiwaimaroCell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Jul 11 08:49:59 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:49:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sala/Colleagues, Any special arrangements for on-arrival visa may still not solve all the problems as airlines from our part of the world refuse to take passengers without visa for destination country. Am not sure if note verbale or a special letter from Azeri government will solve the problem? However, this issue needs to be expedited. At least, Azeri Foreign ministry should allow people to send in passports via mail or there should be less bureaucratic procedures at the embassies for registered IGF participants. Seemingly, it is going to be tougher than acquiring Schengen visa ;) Best wishes Shahzad www.bytesforall.pk From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:20 PM To: , Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. Best Regards, Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at the Feb > and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. > > > From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in > August... > > ... > > Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... > > - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being negotiated. > > o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make ³process as > easy as possible². > > o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This will be > expedited for IGF participants. > > o Comment made that ³will try and see if Visas can be obtained upon arrival² > by IGF participants. > > o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months before > event (Aug 2012) > > > regards > > Robert > > On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. >> > >> > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to >> us). >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ----------------- >> > Dear IGF Secretariat, >> > >> > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of >> > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where >> > there is no Azeri >> > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from >> where >> > they live (US, China etc.) >> > >> > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. >> > >> > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry >> airport? >> > >> > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. >> > >> > best, >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ---------- >> > >> > >> > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : >>> >> +1 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am >>> struggling >>> >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. >>> Visa >>> >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan >>> seems >>> >> to be a very difficult place to go. >>> >> >>> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as >>> >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >>> >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue >>> should >>> >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the >>> >> organizers will keep this in mind. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> Faisal >>> >> Bangladesh >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Emphasis added by me, >>> >> >>> >> Norbert >>> >> -- >>> >> Norbert Klein >>> >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >>> >> nhklein at gmx.net >>> >> http://www.thinking21.org >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >>>> >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jul 11 09:02:28 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:02:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4FFD7964.5010805@cafonso.ca> Izumi, while thanking you for this, I express my amazement at the fact that, given the particular circumstances of this event, the organizers have not yet provided a clear response to these concerns -- which might mean several people abandoning the idea of going, due to basic things such as advanced travel reservations and so on. In my case I had ruled out my participation (Brazilians have to go to Argentina to get a visa), but got the info that the Turkey embassy in Brasília might host an Azeri representation and will be able to issue visas in time for us to get there, so I am reconsidering it. Obviously a clear policy of issuing visas on arrival for registered participants would solve this hurdle -- after all, it is a UN event, for crying out loud. I do agree with Norbert and others that choice of the venue for next IGFs is a relevant topic for Azerbaijan, considering these issues. As Faisal said in a recent message: "If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the organizers will keep this in mind." fraternal regards --c.a. On 07/11/2012 03:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). > > izumi > > ----------------- > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > there is no Azeri > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where > they live (US, China etc.) > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > best, > > izumi > > ---------- > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : >> +1 >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems >> to be a very difficult place to go. >> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the >> organizers will keep this in mind. >> >> Thanks >> Faisal >> Bangladesh >> >> >> Emphasis added by me, >> >> Norbert >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jul 11 09:04:41 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:04:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good point. This approach (i.e. a letter from the Government of the Host Country indicating that visas will be provided for named ICANN Public Meeting attendees on arrival) BARELY worked for the Dakar Meeting at the DC airport. Took some comprehensive negotiation (and especially because it was in French), and the fact that my name was on a list contained within the Letter for clearance to check-in for the flight. On Jul 11, 2012 8:50 AM, "Shahzad Ahmad" wrote: > Dear Sala/Colleagues, > > Any special arrangements for on-arrival visa may still not solve all the > problems as airlines from our part of the world refuse to take passengers > without visa for destination country. > > Am not sure if note verbale or a special letter from Azeri government will > solve the problem? However, this issue needs to be expedited. > > At least, Azeri Foreign ministry should allow people to send in passports > via mail or there should be less bureaucratic procedures at the embassies > for registered IGF participants. Seemingly, it is going to be tougher than > acquiring Schengen visa ;) > > Best wishes > > Shahzad > www.bytesforall.pk > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:20 PM > To: , Robert Guerra > > Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas > > The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a > precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa > clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). > > Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the > bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at the >> Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. >> >> >> From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in >> August... >> >> ... >> >> Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... >> >> - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being >> negotiated. >> >> o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make “process >> as easy as possible”. >> >> o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This will be >> expedited for IGF participants. >> >> o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained upon >> arrival” by IGF participants. >> >> o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months >> before event (Aug 2012) >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. >> > >> > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to >> us). >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ----------------- >> > Dear IGF Secretariat, >> > >> > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of >> > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where >> > there is no Azeri >> > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far >> from where >> > they live (US, China etc.) >> > >> > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. >> > >> > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry >> airport? >> > >> > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. >> > >> > best, >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ---------- >> > >> > >> > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein : >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am >> struggling >> >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi >> Nationals. Visa >> >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan >> seems >> >> to be a very difficult place to go. >> >> >> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as >> >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >> >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue >> should >> >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time >> the >> >> organizers will keep this in mind. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Faisal >> >> Bangladesh >> >> >> >> >> >> Emphasis added by me, >> >> >> >> Norbert >> >> -- >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >> >> nhklein at gmx.net >> >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received > this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.orgTo be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and > functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your > profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 11 09:04:34 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:04:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FFD79E2.9090306@cafonso.ca> Important point, Shahzad. --c.a. On 07/11/2012 09:49 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Sala/Colleagues, > > Any special arrangements for on-arrival visa may still not solve all the > problems as airlines from our part of the world refuse to take > passengers without visa for destination country. > > Am not sure if note verbale or a special letter from Azeri government > will solve the problem? However, this issue needs to be expedited. > > At least, Azeri Foreign ministry should allow people to send in > passports via mail or there should be less bureaucratic procedures at > the embassies for registered IGF participants. Seemingly, it is going to > be tougher than acquiring Schengen visa ;) > > Best wishes > > Shahzad > www.bytesforall.pk > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > Reply-To: >, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:20 PM > To: >, Robert Guerra > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas > > The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a > precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa > clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). > > Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the > bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at > the Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. > > > >From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in August... > > ... > > Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... > > - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being > negotiated. > > o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make > “process as easy as possible”. > > o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This > will be expedited for IGF participants. > > o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained > upon arrival” by IGF participants. > > o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months > before event (Aug 2012) > > > regards > > Robert > > On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). > > > > izumi > > > > ----------------- > > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > > there is no Azeri > > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where > > they live (US, China etc.) > > > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > > > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > > > best, > > > > izumi > > > > ---------- > > > > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein >: > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling > >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa > >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems > >> to be a very difficult place to go. > >> > >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. > >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should > >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the > >> organizers will keep this in mind. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Faisal > >> Bangladesh > >> > >> > >> Emphasis added by me, > >> > >> Norbert > >> -- > >> Norbert Klein > >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia > >> nhklein at gmx.net > >> http://www.thinking21.org > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To > be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this > email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jul 11 09:33:04 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:33:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3905@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Very good point, Sala The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Jul 11 09:34:28 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:34:28 +0500 Subject: Civil Society Statement on Azerbaijan Re: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <4FFD79E2.9090306@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Carlos, At the last IGF in Nairobi, several CS orgs issued this statement at the venue and part of it was also read in plenary, if I remember correctly. Obligations of the next IGF host country ­ Azerbaijan http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/21 Several of us on this list were part of the process for drafting this. Thought I should share again, as it is still relevant in the current context. Best wishes and regards Shahzad www.bytesforall.pk On 7/11/12 6:04 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >Important point, Shahzad. > >--c.a. > >On 07/11/2012 09:49 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Dear Sala/Colleagues, >> >> Any special arrangements for on-arrival visa may still not solve all the >> problems as airlines from our part of the world refuse to take >> passengers without visa for destination country. >> >> Am not sure if note verbale or a special letter from Azeri government >> will solve the problem? However, this issue needs to be expedited. >> >> At least, Azeri Foreign ministry should allow people to send in >> passports via mail or there should be less bureaucratic procedures at >> the embassies for registered IGF participants. Seemingly, it is going to >> be tougher than acquiring Schengen visa ;) >> >> Best wishes >> >> Shahzad >> www.bytesforall.pk >> >> >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> > > >> Reply-To: > >, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> > > >> Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:20 PM >> To: > >, Robert Guerra >> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas >> >> The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a >> precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa >> clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). >> >> Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the >> bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. >> >> Best Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra > > wrote: >> >> Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at >> the Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. >> >> >> >From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an >>answer in August... >> >> ... >> >> Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... >> >> - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being >> negotiated. >> >> o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make >> ³process as easy as possible². >> >> o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This >> will be expedited for IGF participants. >> >> o Comment made that ³will try and see if Visas can be obtained >> upon arrival² by IGF participants. >> >> o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months >> before event (Aug 2012) >> >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. >> > >> > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is >>acceptable to us). >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ----------------- >> > Dear IGF Secretariat, >> > >> > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of >> > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those >>where >> > there is no Azeri >> > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very >>far from where >> > they live (US, China etc.) >> > >> > There is not much information helpful at the current local host >>website. >> > >> > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the >>entry airport? >> > >> > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. >> > >> > best, >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > ---------- >> > >> > >> > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein >>: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am >>struggling >> >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi >>Nationals. Visa >> >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and >>Azerbaijan seems >> >> to be a very difficult place to go. >> >> >> >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF >>as >> >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. >> >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the >>venue should >> >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next >>time the >> >> organizers will keep this in mind. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Faisal >> >> Bangladesh >> >> >> >> >> >> Emphasis added by me, >> >> >> >> Norbert >> >> -- >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia >> >> nhklein at gmx.net >> >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To >> be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to >> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this >> email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jul 11 09:40:43 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:40:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3950@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> My questions, exactly. If it is not mean to be be part of the IETF, what is the reason for an Internet-draft. I too was confused and was planning to ask you if you had contact with the General AD yet, since that is where this would need to be, if it were in the IETF. But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an I-D and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at Ella.com Wed Jul 11 09:44:30 2012 From: avri at Ella.com (=?utf-8?B?YXZyaUBFbGxhLmNvbQ==?=) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:44:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas Message-ID: I think airlines everywhere are doing this because they have to bring home anyone rejected for free. I have also found it hard to convince them in Rhode island of the validity of official letters, unless there was a website they could go to. Avri ----- Reply message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: , "Shahzad Ahmad" Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "Robert Guerra" Subject: [governance] Azeri visas Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 09:04 Important point, Shahzad. --c.a. On 07/11/2012 09:49 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Sala/Colleagues, > > Any special arrangements for on-arrival visa may still not solve all the > problems as airlines from our part of the world refuse to take > passengers without visa for destination country. > > Am not sure if note verbale or a special letter from Azeri government > will solve the problem? However, this issue needs to be expedited. > > At least, Azeri Foreign ministry should allow people to send in > passports via mail or there should be less bureaucratic procedures at > the embassies for registered IGF participants. Seemingly, it is going to > be tougher than acquiring Schengen visa ;) > > Best wishes > > Shahzad > www.bytesforall.pk > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > Reply-To: >, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:20 PM > To: >, Robert Guerra > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Azeri visas > > The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a > precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa > clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). > > Surely, there must be some sort of MoU between the Secretariat and the > bidding country and if there is one this should be woven in. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > Might i remind everyone that asked the issue of Azeri visas both at > the Feb and May IGF open consultations in Geneva. > > > >From my notes of the Feb consultation, it seems we'll get an answer in August... > > ... > > Azerbaijan IGF Secretariat... > > - Visas: Arrangements with Azeri foreign ministry are being > negotiated. > > o An expedited process is likely to be arranged so as to make > “process as easy as possible”. > > o Normally can take up to 5-7 days for a visa to obtained. This > will be expedited for IGF participants. > > o Comment made that “will try and see if Visas can be obtained > upon arrival” by IGF participants. > > o Information about visas will be announced no later then 3 months > before event (Aug 2012) > > > regards > > Robert > > On 2012-07-11, at 2:54 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > Hi, I have just sent the following request to the MAG list. > > > > When I got the reply, will post it here (and hope that is acceptable to us). > > > > izumi > > > > ----------------- > > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of > > the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where > > there is no Azeri > > Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where > > they live (US, China etc.) > > > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > > > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > > > best, > > > > izumi > > > > ---------- > > > > > > 2012/7/11 Norbert Klein >: > >> +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 7/11/2012 1:57 AM, Faisal Hasan wrote: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> I am from Bangladesh. There is no Azerbaijan embassy here. I am struggling > >> to find information about the visa procedure for Bangladeshi Nationals. Visa > >> procedure for us for any country is already difficult and Azerbaijan seems > >> to be a very difficult place to go. > >> > >> I am just wondering why was Azerbaijan chosen as a venue for IGF as > >> travelling there would be a pain for most people. > >> If the IGF wants to be much more inclusive and effective, the venue should > >> be chosen in place where it is lot easier to travel. I hope next time the > >> organizers will keep this in mind. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Faisal > >> Bangladesh > >> > >> > >> Emphasis added by me, > >> > >> Norbert > >> -- > >> Norbert Klein > >> Phnom Penh, Cambodia > >> nhklein at gmx.net > >> http://www.thinking21.org > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > >>> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org To > be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this > email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jul 11 10:55:47 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:55:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3905@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3905@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FFD93F3.9020805@cafonso.ca> Yes! --c.a. On 07/11/2012 10:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Very good point, Sala > > The MAG should also advise the IGF Secretariat that it should be a precondition for anyone bidding to host an IGF to provide full visa clearance or issuance upon arrival for registered person(s). > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 11 11:20:41 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:20:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> (message from Avri Doria on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:37:54 -0400) References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> Message-ID: <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria asked, and Milton seconded, the questions: > But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an > I-D As far as I know, the Internet Draft process is the only well-established, reasonably flexible mechanism for circulation of draft documents provided by any Internet Governance institution with the following important properties: - it can be used by anyone (in fact the required I-D boilerplate states explicitly "Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts".) - document authors retain unlimited rights to also circulate what they have written in other ways. The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. In any case, I hope that using a format and mechanism that IETF participants are familiar with will help with attractive some of them to taking an active role in the nascent ECTF. I think that given a key part of the plan is to use rough consensus decision making mechanisms, it is important to seek to attract a good number of people with relevant experience. > and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? I don't plan to use any formal IETF process besides the "Independent Submissions" stream, as described in RFC 4846 [1], for I-Ds and possibly (if the RFC Editor decides to accept it) eventual publication as an informative RFC. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 Quoting from the Abstract of that RFC: There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community, predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years, of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms. Anyway, it is clearly no longer possible for a meaningful "process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006", as foreseen in papa 71 of the Tunis agenda. The only way in which meaningful Enhanced Cooperation can come about now is IMO by means of some kind of ad hoc process, centered around the IGF community, open to participation of anyone who wants to participate and is able to do so in a constructive manner, reaching out particularly to groups and organizations who clearly have relevant expertise (IGC, IETF, national governments, international organizations). 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jul 11 12:19:38 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:19:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org>,<20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10A845@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, Sounds like a plan. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online Avri Doria asked, and Milton seconded, the questions: > But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an > I-D As far as I know, the Internet Draft process is the only well-established, reasonably flexible mechanism for circulation of draft documents provided by any Internet Governance institution with the following important properties: - it can be used by anyone (in fact the required I-D boilerplate states explicitly "Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts".) - document authors retain unlimited rights to also circulate what they have written in other ways. The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. In any case, I hope that using a format and mechanism that IETF participants are familiar with will help with attractive some of them to taking an active role in the nascent ECTF. I think that given a key part of the plan is to use rough consensus decision making mechanisms, it is important to seek to attract a good number of people with relevant experience. > and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? I don't plan to use any formal IETF process besides the "Independent Submissions" stream, as described in RFC 4846 [1], for I-Ds and possibly (if the RFC Editor decides to accept it) eventual publication as an informative RFC. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 Quoting from the Abstract of that RFC: There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community, predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years, of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms. Anyway, it is clearly no longer possible for a meaningful "process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the first quarter of 2006", as foreseen in papa 71 of the Tunis agenda. The only way in which meaningful Enhanced Cooperation can come about now is IMO by means of some kind of ad hoc process, centered around the IGF community, open to participation of anyone who wants to participate and is able to do so in a constructive manner, reaching out particularly to groups and organizations who clearly have relevant expertise (IGC, IETF, national governments, international organizations). 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 iza at anr.org Wed Jul 11 12:25:04 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:25:04 +0900 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> Message-ID: This is what I wrote to the IGF Secretariat and MAG list. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2012/7/12 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas To: IGF , igf_members at intgovforum.org Dear IGF Secretariat and MAG members, Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where there is no Azeri Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where they live (US, China etc.) There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? And, for many airlines, they will not accept the passengers who have no visas, planning to receive upon arrival since they have to return these passengers who are rejected in the end. We need better process guaranteed as soon as possible, and explained well. # it was mentioned three months in advance at least at the Feb consultation, but some members are starting to worry. Also for Brazilians, for example, since there is no Azeri embassy/consulate, they have to fly to Argentina, that is way too much. Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. And we also feel strongly that for the next IGFs, the host government should provide full guarantee for the visa issues. best, izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Jul 11 12:59:21 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:59:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Three Pillars of Chinese Governance Message-ID: <4FFDB0E9.5080709@communisphere.com> An op-ed in Today's New York Times might be of interest to this list - a different type of multi-stakeholderism. It starts as follows: A Confucian Constitution for China By JIANG QING and DANIEL A. BELL ON Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in Mongolia denouncing Asian governments that seek "to restrict people's access to ideas and information, to imprison them for expressing their views, to usurp the rights of citizens to choose their leaders." It was a swipe at China 's authoritarian political system. The view that China should become more democratic is widely held in the West. But framing the debate in terms of democracy versus authoritarianism overlooks better possibilities. For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT . The political future of China is far likelier to be determined by the longstanding Confucian tradition of "humane authority" than by Western-style multiparty elections. After all, democracy is flawed as an ideal. Political legitimacy is based solely on the sovereignty of the people --- more specifically, a government that grants power to democratically elected representatives. But there is no compelling reason for a government to have only one source of legitimacy. and finishes here - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/a-confucian-constitution-in-china.html?ref=opinion. Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jul 11 13:00:27 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:00:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> Hi, Thanks for the reply. I will be curious to see how this goes. Do you expect any conversation in Vancouver? A bar BoF? Note: IETF is also hosting non-WG mailing lists, so perhaps if you see an interest in the IETF environment you can talk to the ADs about getting one of those going. I will also be curious as to how the IAB and ISOC respond to the draft. They could take up the call and say something. On a related note, in " We agreed with the Association of Progressive Communication (APC) and ICC-BASIS to organize a one-day pre-event back-to-back with the IGF in Baku on 5 November 2012. We also approached the previous developing country IGF Hosts and have received positive answers from Brazil, Egypt and Kenya to participate in this event. I announced this initiative on a panel on the Internet governance landscape at the ICANN meeting in Prague on 25 June. " In your draft you suggest: " The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in- person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the 2013 Internet Governance Forum. " As I understand it, the pre-event day is shaping up to have several choices. so far I now of possible plans: the high level ministerial, ISOC, Giganet, the EC event Markus mentioned in the blog and the ECTF preparatory. I expect all of these may have some discussion of EC. Should be a good day for furthering EC in an IGF context, though I hope the various efforts find way to share some of the common topics so that we are not torn as to which to attend. avri On 11 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria asked, and Milton seconded, the questions: > >> But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an >> I-D > > As far as I know, the Internet Draft process is the only > well-established, reasonably flexible mechanism for > circulation of draft documents provided by any Internet > Governance institution with the following important > properties: > - it can be used by anyone (in fact the required I-D boilerplate > states explicitly "Note that other groups may also distribute > working documents as Internet-Drafts".) > - document authors retain unlimited rights to also circulate > what they have written in other ways. > > The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the > circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. > > In any case, I hope that using a format and mechanism that IETF > participants are familiar with will help with attractive some > of them to taking an active role in the nascent ECTF. I think > that given a key part of the plan is to use rough consensus > decision making mechanisms, it is important to seek to attract > a good number of people with relevant experience. > >> and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? > > I don't plan to use any formal IETF process besides the "Independent > Submissions" stream, as described in RFC 4846 [1], for I-Ds and > possibly (if the RFC Editor decides to accept it) eventual publication > as an informative RFC. > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 > > Quoting from the Abstract of that RFC: > > There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community, > predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years, > of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in > the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms. > > Anyway, it is clearly no longer possible for a meaningful "process > towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN > Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of > the first quarter of 2006", as foreseen in papa 71 of the Tunis agenda. > > The only way in which meaningful Enhanced Cooperation can come about > now is IMO by means of some kind of ad hoc process, centered around > the IGF community, open to participation of anyone who wants to > participate and is able to do so in a constructive manner, reaching > out particularly to groups and organizations who clearly have relevant > expertise (IGC, IETF, national governments, international organizations). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 11 14:55:20 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:55:20 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> (message from Avri Doria on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:00:27 -0400) References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> Message-ID: <20120711185520.6A8011AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > I will be curious to see how this goes. Do you expect any conversation in > Vancouver? A bar BoF? Perhaps unfortunately I missed the deadline for I-D submission for consideration in Vancouver, and I've also not made any plans nor arranged for funding for going to Vancouver myself. Alas the next IETF after this, in Atlanta GA in November, clashes with the Baku IGF. So it seems to me that realistically, the first opportunities when I might try to create a conversation about the ECTF idea in an IETF context would be in Orlando in March 2013 and/or in Berlin in July 2013. Actually I think that it makes sense to seriously start the conversations about the ECTF idea not primarily in the IETF context but first in the context of the 2012 IGF (and preparatory / pre-events in that context), and only proceed to raise it in IETF contexts after the proposal has been updated to reflect what I will learn from the feedback that I can get in Baku. > Note: IETF is also hosting non-WG mailing lists, so perhaps if you > see an interest in the IETF environment you can talk to the ADs > about getting one of those going. Do you see a benefit of taking that path, instead of e.g. hosting a list myself at enhanced-cooperation.org? (As we have seen, the step that I've taken in putting my proposal in the form of an I-D already comes with the risk of being misunderstood as proposing to expand the authority of the IETF. My feeling that in addition using an IETF-hosted mailing list would likely increase this problem more than I could justify.) > I will also be curious as to how the IAB and ISOC respond to the > draft. Me also. > They could take up the call and say something. Yes, that would be nice. Although at the current stage, when the main goal must be to convince some governments to support the idea, I'm not sure how much an endorsement from IAB and/or ISOC would help. > On a related note, in > > > " > We agreed with the Association of Progressive Communication (APC) > and ICC-BASIS to organize a one-day pre-event back-to-back with the > IGF in Baku on 5 November 2012. We also approached the previous > developing country IGF Hosts and have received positive answers from > Brazil, Egypt and Kenya to participate in this event. I announced > this initiative on a panel on the Internet governance landscape at > the ICANN meeting in Prague on 25 June. > " I'm aware of this, and hope to get invited. :-) > In your draft you suggest: > > " > The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in- > person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the > 2013 Internet Governance Forum. > " Note the reference to the year 2013 there. > As I understand it, the pre-event day is shaping up to have several > choices. so far I now of possible plans: the high level ministerial, > ISOC, Giganet, the EC event Markus mentioned in the blog and the > ECTF preparatory. I expect all of these may have some discussion of > EC. Should be a good day for furthering EC in an IGF context, > though I hope the various efforts find way to share some of the > common topics so that we are not torn as to which to attend. While I feel honored that you list the ECTF preparatory meeting among your possible plans, I don't see this as taking place before next year. For Baku, I think the goal must be to have good conversations among all who see a need for some form of implementation of Enhanced Cooperation. 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 Wed Jul 11 14:58:14 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:58:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> Message-ID: <4FFDCCC6.80305@apc.org> Thanks for this Avri. I had a short email chat with Jeremy today. This event could be a good opportunity for these ideas to be presented. Work on the outline and programme of the pre-event has stalled for now although the event is definitely going ahead. We will pick up work on prep again asap and will post more info here. Anriette On 11/07/2012 19:00, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the reply. > > I will be curious to see how this goes. Do you expect any conversation in Vancouver? A bar BoF? > Note: IETF is also hosting non-WG mailing lists, so perhaps if you see an interest in the IETF environment you can talk to the ADs about getting one of those going. I will also be curious as to how the IAB and ISOC respond to the draft. They could take up the call and say something. > > On a related note, in > > > " > We agreed with the Association of Progressive Communication (APC) and ICC-BASIS to organize a one-day pre-event back-to-back with the IGF in Baku on 5 November 2012. We also approached the previous developing country IGF Hosts and have received positive answers from Brazil, Egypt and Kenya to participate in this event. I announced this initiative on a panel on the Internet governance landscape at the ICANN meeting in Prague on 25 June. > " > > In your draft you suggest: > > " > The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in- > person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the > 2013 Internet Governance Forum. > " > > As I understand it, the pre-event day is shaping up to have several choices. so far I now of possible plans: the high level ministerial, ISOC, Giganet, the EC event Markus mentioned in the blog and the ECTF preparatory. I expect all of these may have some discussion of EC. Should be a good day for furthering EC in an IGF context, though I hope the various efforts find way to share some of the common topics so that we are not torn as to which to attend. > > avri > > > > On 11 Jul 2012, at 11:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria asked, and Milton seconded, the questions: >> >>> But since this is not an IETF plan, I really don't understand why an >>> I-D >> >> As far as I know, the Internet Draft process is the only >> well-established, reasonably flexible mechanism for >> circulation of draft documents provided by any Internet >> Governance institution with the following important >> properties: >> - it can be used by anyone (in fact the required I-D boilerplate >> states explicitly "Note that other groups may also distribute >> working documents as Internet-Drafts".) >> - document authors retain unlimited rights to also circulate >> what they have written in other ways. >> >> The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the >> circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. >> >> In any case, I hope that using a format and mechanism that IETF >> participants are familiar with will help with attractive some >> of them to taking an active role in the nascent ECTF. I think >> that given a key part of the plan is to use rough consensus >> decision making mechanisms, it is important to seek to attract >> a good number of people with relevant experience. >> >>> and by what IETF process do you intend this to come about? >> >> I don't plan to use any formal IETF process besides the "Independent >> Submissions" stream, as described in RFC 4846 [1], for I-Ds and >> possibly (if the RFC Editor decides to accept it) eventual publication >> as an informative RFC. >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4846 >> >> Quoting from the Abstract of that RFC: >> >> There is a long-standing tradition in the Internet community, >> predating the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) by many years, >> of use of the RFC Series to publish materials that are not rooted in >> the IETF standards process and its review and approval mechanisms. >> >> Anyway, it is clearly no longer possible for a meaningful "process >> towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN >> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of >> the first quarter of 2006", as foreseen in papa 71 of the Tunis agenda. >> >> The only way in which meaningful Enhanced Cooperation can come about >> now is IMO by means of some kind of ad hoc process, centered around >> the IGF community, open to participation of anyone who wants to >> participate and is able to do so in a constructive manner, reaching >> out particularly to groups and organizations who clearly have relevant >> expertise (IGC, IETF, national governments, international organizations). >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 avri at acm.org Wed Jul 11 15:20:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:20:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711185520.6A8011AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> <20120711185520.6A8011AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9EC3CA2B-46B0-4BF0-8F76-A94AA289DDF1@acm.org> Hi, Ooops, I missed the 2013 in your plans. I knew I would get something wrong when I set out to reply to your message. And while I am not sure this is the option I support, I completely agree that by IGF 2013, some option should be well along and the IGF plan should include it. Finally, of course I would have tried to timeshare between the pre-events. And in good old IETF/IGF spirit I will join a mailing list when one is created, wherever it is created. (I am not sure that using the IGC list is the right idea, as mentioned in the draft, but a private list is ok, there are lots of those) avri On 11 Jul 2012, at 14:55, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: >> I will be curious to see how this goes. Do you expect any conversation in >> Vancouver? A bar BoF? > > Perhaps unfortunately I missed the deadline for I-D submission for > consideration in Vancouver, and I've also not made any plans nor > arranged for funding for going to Vancouver myself. Alas the next > IETF after this, in Atlanta GA in November, clashes with the Baku > IGF. So it seems to me that realistically, the first opportunities > when I might try to create a conversation about the ECTF idea in an > IETF context would be in Orlando in March 2013 and/or in Berlin in > July 2013. > > Actually I think that it makes sense to seriously start the > conversations about the ECTF idea not primarily in the IETF context > but first in the context of the 2012 IGF (and preparatory / pre-events > in that context), and only proceed to raise it in IETF contexts after > the proposal has been updated to reflect what I will learn from the > feedback that I can get in Baku. > >> Note: IETF is also hosting non-WG mailing lists, so perhaps if you >> see an interest in the IETF environment you can talk to the ADs >> about getting one of those going. > > Do you see a benefit of taking that path, instead of e.g. hosting a > list myself at enhanced-cooperation.org? (As we have seen, the step > that I've taken in putting my proposal in the form of an I-D already > comes with the risk of being misunderstood as proposing to expand the > authority of the IETF. My feeling that in addition using an IETF-hosted > mailing list would likely increase this problem more than I could > justify.) > >> I will also be curious as to how the IAB and ISOC respond to the >> draft. > > Me also. > >> They could take up the call and say something. > > Yes, that would be nice. Although at the current stage, when the main > goal must be to convince some governments to support the idea, I'm > not sure how much an endorsement from IAB and/or ISOC would help. > >> On a related note, in >> >> >> " >> We agreed with the Association of Progressive Communication (APC) >> and ICC-BASIS to organize a one-day pre-event back-to-back with the >> IGF in Baku on 5 November 2012. We also approached the previous >> developing country IGF Hosts and have received positive answers from >> Brazil, Egypt and Kenya to participate in this event. I announced >> this initiative on a panel on the Internet governance landscape at >> the ICANN meeting in Prague on 25 June. >> " > > I'm aware of this, and hope to get invited. :-) > >> In your draft you suggest: >> >> " >> The work of this Preparatory Working-Group could begin with an in- >> person kick-off meeting which might be a one-day pre-event for the >> 2013 Internet Governance Forum. >> " > > Note the reference to the year 2013 there. > >> As I understand it, the pre-event day is shaping up to have several >> choices. so far I now of possible plans: the high level ministerial, >> ISOC, Giganet, the EC event Markus mentioned in the blog and the >> ECTF preparatory. I expect all of these may have some discussion of >> EC. Should be a good day for furthering EC in an IGF context, >> though I hope the various efforts find way to share some of the >> common topics so that we are not torn as to which to attend. > > While I feel honored that you list the ECTF preparatory meeting among > your possible plans, I don't see this as taking place before next > year. For Baku, I think the goal must be to have good conversations > among all who see a need for some form of implementation of Enhanced > Cooperation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 15:21:28 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:21:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Three Pillars of Chinese Governance In-Reply-To: <4FFDB0E9.5080709@communisphere.com> References: <4FFDB0E9.5080709@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Did I read this right? ".... a government that grants power to democratically elected representatives."? I thought it was the people that grant 'democratically elected' representatives the power to from a government .... Rui On 11 July 2012 18:59, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > An op-ed in Today's New York Times might be of interest to this list - a > different type of multi-stakeholderism. > > It starts as follows: > **A Confucian Constitution for China** ** By JIANG QING and DANIEL A. BELL > ** > ** ** ** > > ON Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech in > Mongolia denouncing Asian governments > that seek “to restrict people’s access to ideas and information, to > imprison them for expressing their views, to usurp the rights of citizens > to choose their leaders.” It was a swipe at China’s > authoritarian political system. The view that China should become more > democratic is widely held in the West. But framing the debate in terms of > democracy versus authoritarianism overlooks better possibilities. > ** > > For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and > to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT > . > > The political future of China is far likelier to be determined by the > longstanding Confucian tradition of “humane authority” than by > Western-style multiparty elections. After all, democracy is flawed as an > ideal. Political legitimacy is based solely on the sovereignty of the > people — more specifically, a government that grants power to > democratically elected representatives. But there is no compelling reason > for a government to have only one source of legitimacy. > > and finishes here - > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/opinion/a-confucian-constitution-in-china.html?ref=opinion. > > Tom > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 "Quando a verdade é substituída pelo silêncio, o silêncio é uma mentira" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko Rui Correia _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Wed Jul 11 19:06:30 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CF2DD0F0E1C8DF-22B8-747DA@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- On this latest draft, I have serious doubts that any government would consider that Frank La Rue's reports constitute enforceable interpretations of international law. I think trying to raise such reports to such standing would only weaken our statement in the eyes of Azerbaijan and other legal authorities. La Rue's Special Rapporteurship is important, as are his reports, but they cannot be invoked as if they were binding judgments of a Supreme Court. Best regards, Ronald Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Cc: governance ; coordinators ; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear Tim, Mathias K and Wolfgang B and all, Thank you for the contribution and they will be factored into the second draft along with Tim and other comments and contributions. Your contributions help make the Statement better. Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: Dear all, thanks, Sala, for the great first draft. Wolfgang Benedek and would like to submit a substantially revised version for the list’s consideration. In particular, we have added specific language quoting from the HRC Resolution on Internet rights, have expanded the section on legitimate exceptions to freedom of expression (namely the three-part-test) and have highlighted the importance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2011 report elaborating on the reach of these exceptions. Since they were substantial, we attach a .docx version with visible changes. Kind regards Matthias Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Statement on Azerbaijan - draft The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect human rights in Azerbaijan. Notably he recommended decriminalizing defamation and allowing civil society to operate without restrictions. He further called upon Azerbaijan to end the arrests of journalists and those with differing political views. We reaffirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non-member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva when it co-sponsored the Council’s first resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, The Resolution affirms that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.[3] Welcoming this commitment, we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment for online and offline expression where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be held and expressed. As Azerbaijan acceded to the ICCPR on 13 August 1992, it is obliged to respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant and provide only for those limitations which are legitimate under it. Article 19 protects the rights of everyone to freedom of expression, including the 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 rights. Restrictions may only be provided by law and must be necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This restriction is to be interpreted in light of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, of 2011. Thus any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must be provided by a law that is clear and accessible to everyone, it must aim to ensure one of the legitimate purpose set out in Article 19, and, importantly, must be necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. We would also like to remind Azerbaijan that, in the words, of Special Rapporteur La Rue, “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, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.”[4] We would finally like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan 2 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 3 Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Juli 2012 20:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All, Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. The Draft Statement reads as follows:- The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. Ends [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement Kind Regards, Sala -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ -- Mag. Dr. 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 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. [4] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Jul 12 02:39:18 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:39:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: <8CF2DD0F0E1C8DF-22B8-747DA@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Thank You, Rony, but nobody claims that they are binding. They are interpretative statements of high authority which explain to governments how they should handle their obligations. This is why they are useful to point out. Kind regards Von: Koven Ronald > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Koven Ronald > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" >, Matthias Kettemann > Cc: "coordinators at igcaucus.org" >, Universität Graz > Betreff: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All -- On this latest draft, I have serious doubts that any government would consider that Frank La Rue's reports constitute enforceable interpretations of international law. I think trying to raise such reports to such standing would only weaken our statement in the eyes of Azerbaijan and other legal authorities. La Rue's Special Rapporteurship is important, as are his reports, but they cannot be invoked as if they were binding judgments of a Supreme Court. Best regards, Ronald Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) > Cc: governance >; coordinators >; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) > Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear Tim, Mathias K and Wolfgang B and all, Thank you for the contribution and they will be factored into the second draft along with Tim and other comments and contributions. Your contributions help make the Statement better. Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) > wrote: Dear all, thanks, Sala, for the great first draft. Wolfgang Benedek and would like to submit a substantially revised version for the list’s consideration. In particular, we have added specific language quoting from the HRC Resolution on Internet rights, have expanded the section on legitimate exceptions to freedom of expression (namely the three-part-test) and have highlighted the importance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2011 report elaborating on the reach of these exceptions. Since they were substantial, we attach a .docx version with visible changes. Kind regards Matthias Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Statement on Azerbaijan - draft The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect human rights in Azerbaijan. Notably he recommended decriminalizing defamation and allowing civil society to operate without restrictions. He further called upon Azerbaijan to end the arrests of journalists and those with differing political views. We reaffirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non-member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva when it co-sponsored the Council’s first resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, The Resolution affirms that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.[3] Welcoming this commitment, we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment for online and offline expression where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be held and expressed. As Azerbaijan acceded to the ICCPR on 13 August 1992, it is obliged to respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant and provide only for those limitations which are legitimate under it. Article 19 protects the rights of everyone to freedom of expression, including the 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 rights. Restrictions may only be provided by law and must be necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This restriction is to be interpreted in light of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, of 2011. Thus any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must be provided by a law that is clear and accessible to everyone, it must aim to ensure one of the legitimate purpose set out in Article 19, and, importantly, must be necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. We would also like to remind Azerbaijan that, in the words, of Special Rapporteur La Rue, “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, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.”[4] We would finally like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan 2 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 3 Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Juli 2012 20:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All, Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. The Draft Statement reads as follows:- The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. Ends ________________________________ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement Kind Regards, Sala -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ -- Mag. Dr. 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 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ ________________________________ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. [4] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From renate.bloem at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 06:17:27 2012 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate bloem (Gmail)) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:17:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: <8CF2DD0F0E1C8DF-22B8-747DA@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF2DD0F0E1C8DF-22B8-747DA@webmail-m028.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00e601cd6017$8b78b370$a26a1a50$@gmail.com> Hi Ronny, As a lurker on this list, but very involved at the HRC, I would reiterate what was said below. Frank La Rue does not give new interpretations of International Law, but only makes existing facts clearer through perfect transparent language. Renate A. Restriction of content on the Internet 69. The Special Rapporteur is cognizant of the fact that, like all technological inventions, the Internet can be misused to cause harm to others. 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. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Koven Ronald Sent: jeudi 12 juillet 2012 01:07 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org; wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All -- On this latest draft, I have serious doubts that any government would consider that Frank La Rue's reports constitute enforceable interpretations of international law. I think trying to raise such reports to such standing would only weaken our statement in the eyes of Azerbaijan and other legal authorities. La Rue's Special Rapporteurship is important, as are his reports, but they cannot be invoked as if they were binding judgments of a Supreme Court. Best regards, Ronald Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Cc: governance ; coordinators ; Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) Sent: Wed, Jul 11, 2012 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear Tim, Mathias K and Wolfgang B and all, Thank you for the contribution and they will be factored into the second draft along with Tim and other comments and contributions. Your contributions help make the Statement better. Sala On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: Dear all, thanks, Sala, for the great first draft. Wolfgang Benedek and would like to submit a substantially revised version for the list’s consideration. In particular, we have added specific language quoting from the HRC Resolution on Internet rights, have expanded the section on legitimate exceptions to freedom of expression (namely the three-part-test) and have highlighted the importance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2011 report elaborating on the reach of these exceptions. Since they were substantial, we attach a .docx version with visible changes. Kind regards Matthias Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Statement on Azerbaijan - draft The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect human rights in Azerbaijan. Notably he recommended decriminalizing defamation and allowing civil society to operate without restrictions. He further called upon Azerbaijan to end the arrests of journalists and those with differing political views. We reaffirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non-member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva when it co-sponsored the Council’s first resolution on the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, The Resolution affirms that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.[3] <> Welcoming this commitment, we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment for online and offline expression where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be held and expressed. As Azerbaijan acceded to the ICCPR on 13 August 1992, it is obliged to respect the rights enshrined in the Covenant and provide only for those limitations which are legitimate under it. Article 19 protects the rights of everyone to freedom of expression, including the 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 rights. Restrictions may only be provided by law and must be necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. This restriction is to be interpreted in light of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, of 2011. Thus any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must be provided by a law that is clear and accessible to everyone, it must aim to ensure one of the legitimate purpose set out in Article 19, and, importantly, must be necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. We would also like to remind Azerbaijan that, in the words, of Special Rapporteur La Rue, “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, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.”[4] <> We would finally like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan 2 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 3 Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. 4 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. Von:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Juli 2012 20:26 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: coordinators at igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] Dear All, Following AYEs from Sonigitu Ekpe, Louis Pouzin, Divina Meigs, Ronald Koven, Narine Kachatryan, Wolfgang Benedek, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Christopher Wilkinson, Mathias Ketteman, Gorka Orueta, International lvssion, Jean-Louis Fullsack, Ginger Paque, Shaila Mistry, Izumi Aizu and no NAYs, I have composed a first Draft Statement which is on the IGC site. The Draft Statement is available for your comments and edits via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=61 This will mean that you can comment on each sentence and paragraph specifically and see others comments as well for ease of drafting. We will be using the Statement Workspace to gather feedback etc. Looking forward to your comments and input. The Draft Statement reads as follows:- The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus wishes to express its grave concern over the reports[1] of violation of human rights of civil society in Azerbaijan. We note that the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg had in September 2011 (CommDH(2011)33) made a series of observations and recommendations[2] such as the need to strengthen and protect Human Rights in Azerbaijan which included things like decriminalizing defamation, allowing civil society to operate without restrictions, the arrests of journalists and those with differing political perspectives. We affirm these recommendations. Whilst Azerbaijan is a non member state of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it was encouraging to note the commitment made by the Government of Azerbaijan on the 29 June 2012 at the 20th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva vide A/HRC/20/L.13[3]where together with 71 countries it made a bold affirmation of commitment to the protection of freedoms of expression through any media of one’s choice. This is good progress however we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to encourage the creation of a safe and free environment where diverse and conflicting views on issues can be raised where ideas are robustly teased out without resorting to violence and abuse. We are also concerned that there is a danger to hide behind the exceptions provided for in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and we would like to urge the Government of Azerbaijan to remember the spirit of the preamble within the ICCPR in which Article 19 is to be interpreted which includes peace and freedom. We would also like to call upon the Government of Azerbaijan to review its legislations, policies and practices to ensure that freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of peaceful assembly is encouraged as these are fundamental elements of a stable and democratic society. Ends _____ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G12/147/10/PDF/G1214710.pdf?OpenElement Kind Regards, Sala -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ -- Mag. Dr. 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 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ _____ [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-azerbaijan [2] https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 [3] Human Rights Council, The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet, adopted 5 July 2012, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/L.13 (preliminary), http://goo.gl/IxtmC. [4] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/27 of 16 May 2011, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf, para. 24. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Jul 12 07:22:27 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:22:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, An afterthought. Not being a seasoned interpreter of UN language I wonder if freedom of information is clearly understood as part of human rights requirements stated in this draft. I mean freedom to listen to radio, watch TV, and access to internet sites. Customarily authoritarian regimes block or redirect names of internet sites they dislike. If this is relevant you might mention it wherever appropriate in the text. Louis On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Dear Sala, > > I agree with the draft. > > Best, Louis > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 07:41:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:41:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement [Azerbaijan and Human Rights] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good point Louis. I am noting everyone's comments. Please note that I will eventually edit the Draft. I have just arrived in Wellington after travelling an entire day so there will be quite a lag time before you see the new edits. In the meantime, please send in your comments and feedback as they are good musings and reflections. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Dear Sala, > > An afterthought. Not being a seasoned interpreter of UN language I wonder > if freedom of information is clearly understood as part of human rights > requirements stated in this draft. I mean freedom to listen to radio, watch > TV, and access to internet sites. Customarily authoritarian regimes block > or redirect names of internet sites they dislike. > > If this is relevant you might mention it wherever appropriate in the text. > > Louis > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Dear Sala, >> >> I agree with the draft. >> >> Best, Louis >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Jul 12 09:18:54 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:18:54 +0900 Subject: Fwd: [igf_members] Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <39F2B599-F29E-496B-AE06-1ED21E6AFFEF@unog.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> <5E322E71BC3D6746ABC59A483A38029E1B6A0B7731@FLDP1LUMXC7V52.us.one.verizon.com> <39F2B599-F29E-496B-AE06-1ED21E6AFFEF@unog.ch> Message-ID: Dear list, This is the reply from Chengetai, IGF Secretariat, to our question/request for smooth visa process. My original question comes after his reply. thank you, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: 2012/7/12 Subject: Re: [igf_members] Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas To: igf Forum Cc: Izumi AIZU Dear Izumi, Thank you for your question and bringing up this concern. The UN team has just finished its planning mission to Baku (actually I am still at the airport) and we had talks with the various government ministries concerned with the arrangements for the IGF 2012 meeting. The Azerbaijani Government have assured us that they will do everything possible to insure the smooth issuance of visa's for participants be it at their consulates or for participants that do not have Azerbaijani Consulates in their countries, upon arrival at the airport as long as the participant has the registration approval form from the IGF Secretariat and a supporting letter from the hosts. Full details of the process will be posted on the host country website in the next few of weeks. Usually, in my experience visa's only start being issued 3 months before an event but we intend to start the registration process before that. They have the experience of issuing visa's at the airport, the last major event were this method was used was for the the Eurovision Song contest which had over five thousand foriegn attendees. The process went rather smoothly according to both the EBU and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. This method has also been used for various other international events that have been held in Baku. Therefore, this will not be the first time they are doing it and the influx of participants for the IGF is much smaller than what they coped with during the Eurovision song contest. Furthermore the UN team also used this method to enter Azerbaijan and it went very smoothly. During the last IGF in Kenya some participants could also get their visa's at the airport, this is not an unusual practice. For those who are uneasy about this method they can also post or express mail their documents to the Azerbaijani consulate in the nearest country. This has been done by some participants for almost all the past IGF meetings (including open consultations) as I am sure some members of this list can attest. There is also going to be a person specifically assigned to deal with IGF visa issues in the Foreign Ministry during the run up to the event. I do understand that getting visa's in the best of circumstances is inconvenient to most but I have all the confidence that the Azerbaijani Government will make this process as smooth as they can. best regards Chengetai > -----Original Message----- > From: igf_members-bounces at intgovforum.org [mailto:igf_members-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: 11 July 2012 16:57 > To: IGF; igf_members at intgovforum.org > Subject: [igf_members] Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas > > Dear IGF Secretariat and MAG members, > > Civil society members have been wondering about the uncertainty of the visa issue process for Azerbaijan IGF. Especially for those where there is no Azeri Embassy or Consulate inside their country, or even there is, very far from where they live (US, China etc.) > > There is not much information helpful at the current local host website. > > Is "note verbal" enough to assure us to obtain the visa at the entry airport? > And, for many airlines, they will not accept the passengers who have no visas, planning to receive upon arrival since they have to return these passengers who are rejected in the end. > > We need better process guaranteed as soon as possible, and explained well. > # it was mentioned three months in advance at least at the Feb consultation, but some members are starting to worry. Also for Brazilians, for example, since there is no Azeri embassy/consulate, they have to fly to Argentina, that is way too much. > > Your clarification at earliest possible is very much appreciated. > > And we also feel strongly that for the next IGFs, the host government should provide full guarantee for the visa issues. > > best, > > > izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jul 12 10:18:49 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:18:49 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [igf_members] Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> <5E322E71BC3D6746ABC59A483A38029E1B6A0B7731@FLDP1LUMXC7V52.us.one.verizon.com> <39F2B599-F29E-496B-AE06-1ED21E6AFFEF@unog.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 22:18:54 on Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Izumi AIZU writes >The Azerbaijani Government have assured us that they will do >everything possible to insure the smooth issuance of visa's for >participants be it at their consulates or for participants that do not >have Azerbaijani Consulates in their countries, upon arrival at the >airport as long as the participant has the registration approval form >from the IGF Secretariat and a supporting letter from the hosts. It's often the "supporting letter" which is the problem. Do we have the contact details for the hosts, to obtain such a letter (as it seems likely the IGF secretariat and their registration approval is not a letter-from-the hosts)? Sometimes such letters need to be personalised, or sometimes a generic one will suffice. Izumi, can you follow up these details with Chengetai? -- 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 matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Thu Jul 12 10:45:40 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:45:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just published: European Yearbook on Human Rights 2012 Message-ID: Dear friends and colleagues, [cid:image003.jpg at 01CD604D.C5826DA0]In terms of both human rights and democracy, 2011 was a revolutionary year. The European Yearbook on Human Rights 2012, which has just been published, sheds lights on some of the key developments in Europe and in the world, The fourth edition of the European Yearbook on Human Rights brings together 28 contributions by renowned human rights experts that provide a much needed overview and sought-after analysis. You can order it online at http://www.nwv.at/recht/verfassungsrecht/944_european_yearbook_on_human_rights_2012/ and (soon) at Amazon: http://www.amazon.de/European-Yearbook-Human-Rights-2012/dp/3708308441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342098617&sr=8-1 We would also like to ask you to forward the enclosed order form to your library or any other institutions or colleagues who might be interested in procuring the publication. Should you any queries, please contact the acting co-editor Wolfgang Benedek (Wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) or associate editor Matthias C. Kettemann (Matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at). Kind regards Wolfgang Benedek Acting Co-Editor Matthias C. Kettemann Associate Editor -- Mag. Dr. 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 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 93107 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5949 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EYHR 2012 order form.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1473349 bytes Desc: EYHR 2012 order form.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jul 12 11:23:18 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 00:23:18 +0900 Subject: Fwd: [igf_members] Fwd: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0AB2D4E1-874D-4B1D-A037-6E91D5AD6205@entropia.blog.br> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B353C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4AD40AC5-32E2-4F41-8279-FDD96798A4CE@ella.com> <4FFCE976.1080502@gmx.net> <5E322E71BC3D6746ABC59A483A38029E1B6A0B7731@FLDP1LUMXC7V52.us.one.verizon.com> <39F2B599-F29E-496B-AE06-1ED21E6AFFEF@unog.ch> Message-ID: the supporting letter comes once you have registered, and registration will open in a few weeks (says Chengetai.) The Azeris haven't done anything wrong, and no reason to think they will as their answers since the first consultations have been quite confident and aware of problems. No embassy in your home country, you'll get an invitation and note verbale which will allow for a visa on arrival, and if you don't trust that, send your passport away as often happens. If there's an embassy, get a visa through usual channels. November's still quite a way off. No need to worry just yet. (Thanks Izumi :-)) Adam Adam On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > , at > 22:18:54 on Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Izumi AIZU writes > >> The Azerbaijani Government have assured us that they will do >> everything possible to insure the smooth issuance of visa's for >> participants be it at their consulates or for participants that do not >> have Azerbaijani Consulates in their countries, upon arrival at the >> airport as long as the participant has the registration approval form >> from the IGF Secretariat and a supporting letter from the hosts. > > > It's often the "supporting letter" which is the problem. > > Do we have the contact details for the hosts, to obtain such a letter (as it > seems likely the IGF secretariat and their registration approval is not a > letter-from-the hosts)? > > Sometimes such letters need to be personalised, or sometimes a generic one > will suffice. Izumi, can you follow up these details with Chengetai? > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jul 12 12:42:17 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:42:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B5A3D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the > circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. True. This is clearly a limitation of the IGF. It should not be that difficult a one to fix, either. I suppose that there are IGF "doves" (Jeremy prefers the term "weasels") who would oppose such a thing. This is a good example of why they shouldn't. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jul 12 12:57:25 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 01:57:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B5A3D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B5A3D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: perhaps a MAG member could ask their MAG colleagues if they thought it a good idea to have an open space on the IGF website where papers relevant to the IGF could be shared. Same standards as if the paper were a contribution for a consultation. Adam On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the >> circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. > > True. This is clearly a limitation of the IGF. It should not be that difficult a one to fix, either. I suppose that there are IGF "doves" (Jeremy prefers the term "weasels") who would oppose such a thing. This is a good example of why they shouldn't. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 12 18:35:18 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:35:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Routing Gone Wild: Documenting upstream filtering in Oman via India Message-ID: Though the Posting here as it might be of New Citizen Lab / ONI cross-posted blog report might be of interest to folks on the governance list.. Ron and I welcome any on the report. regards Robert --- New Citizen Lab / ONI cross-posted blog report: Routing Gone Wild: Documenting upstream filtering in Oman via India Key Findings • Data collected from Oman shows that web filtering applied by India-based ISPs is restricting access to content for customers of an ISP in Oman. While unusual, content filtering undertaken in one political jurisdiction can have an effect on users in another political jurisdiction as a result of ISP routing arrangements – a phenomenon known as “upstream filtering.” • Content found to be filtered includes news sites, political blogs and file sharing sites. • Some variability in filtering was documented, potentially linked to certain measures to loosen filtering regulations in India. https://citizenlab.org/2012/07/routing-gone-wild/ Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 12 20:32:26 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:32:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B5A3D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Its one of those suggestions that have always been bashed by a certain stakeholder group and the various versions were a space on the igf secretariat website, a wiki space, a repository and what not. Apart from the igf annual publication and meeting transcript, everything else is feared to evolve into an outcome that might further evolve into become a binding document or policy instrument of some form if not intercepted. Pufewee! Fouad Bajwa On Jul 12, 2012 9:57 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > perhaps a MAG member could ask their MAG colleagues if they thought it > a good idea to have an open space on the IGF website where papers > relevant to the IGF could be shared. Same standards as if the paper > were a contribution for a consultation. > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> The IGF certainly doesn't provide any mechanism for the > >> circulation of draft documents that I could have used instead. > > > > True. This is clearly a limitation of the IGF. It should not be that > difficult a one to fix, either. I suppose that there are IGF "doves" > (Jeremy prefers the term "weasels") who would oppose such a thing. This is > a good example of why they shouldn't. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 12:20:10 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:20:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Message-ID: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Fri Jul 13 15:49:05 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 04:49:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: > Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and > open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be > created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx > > M > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 16:56:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:56:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is what IGC and member organizations should do ASAP: 1 *It should be noted that all civil society organizations, of an international nature and who are working on issues related to information and communication technologies, are already entitled to no-cost membership and indeed several such entities were welcomed into ITU this year and their membership was supported and endorsed by the ITU Council.* *For more information, please contact:* *Paul Conneally* Head, Communication and Partnership Promotion ----Fouad On Saturday, July 14, 2012, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? > Further plan of action? > > Izumi > > > 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com 'cvml', 'gurstein at gmail.com');>: > >> Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and >> open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be >> created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx >> >> M >> >> >> > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Jul 14 02:54:56 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 06:54:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Izumi, a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies with it as the process takes place over the coming months. One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on decisions. We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that yields a few very clear results. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 03:14:43 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:14:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Hello Everyone, My name is Fahd from Jordan. I just joined the mailing list, and this should be my first contribution. While I welcome the ITU's decision, I just hope it is not yet another one of their long lasting attempts to move Internet censorship to their umbrella by claiming to have a bottom-up multi-stakeholder diplomatic approach. I also wonder if this multi-stakeholder approach will be applied to the WCIT discussions which - as we all know - is of worrying nature to many. Cheers, Fahd Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and >> open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be >> created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx >> >> M >> > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 05:41:19 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:41:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] NYT: U.S. Pursuing a Middleman in Web Piracy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50013EBF.1050809@gmail.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/technology/us-pursues-richard-odwyer-as-intermediary-in-online-piracy.html July 12, 2012 U.S. Pursuing a Middleman in Web Piracy By SOMINI SENGUPTA Richard O’Dwyer, an enterprising 24-year-old college student from northern England, has found himself in the middle of a fierce battle between two of America’s great exports: Hollywood and the Internet. At issue is a Web site he started that helped visitors find American movies and television shows online. Although the site did not serve up pirated content, American authorities say it provided links to sites that did. The Obama administration is seeking to extradite Mr. O’Dwyer from Britain on criminal charges of copyright infringement. The possible punishment: 10 years in a United States prison. The case is the government’s most far-reaching effort so far to crack down on foreigners suspected of breaking American laws. It is unusual because it goes after a middleman, who the authorities say made a fair amount of money by pointing people to pirated content. Mr. O’Dwyer’s backers say the prosecution goes too far, squelching his free-speech right to publish links to other Web sites. Mr. O’Dwyer did not respond to requests for an interview, but his mother, Julia, a nurse with the state-run health service, described him as a somewhat reserved young man who grew up playing Super Mario games on his computer and became devoted to coding. He studies interactive media and animation at Sheffield Hallam University and, his mother said, long ago spent the money he had made from his Web site. “He would take his mates to the cinema and pay for them,” she said. No matter how Mr. O’Dwyer’s legal problems are resolved, the case against him reflects the complexities of wrestling with piracy in the digital age. The entertainment industry lobbied Congress hard for the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, which was withdrawn this year after an online uproar led by Web companies and their consumers. Another bill on Capitol Hill would establish intellectual property attachés in American embassies. An international antipiracy treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, was roundly rejected last week by the European Parliament. In the last two years, the Obama administration has closed about 800 Web sites suspected of piracy, including those that stream new Hollywood films. In a widely publicized case, the Justice Department has sought to extradite the operators of Megaupload, a site that let users anonymously share movies and music, on criminal copyright infringement. “There is a problem of copyright infringement on the Internet, and copyright owners have been struggling over how to deal with that,” said Mark A. Lemley, a Stanford law professor who has represented Internet companies like Google in intellectual property disputes. “The U.S. government is aggressively getting involved in turning what used to be civil lawsuits into criminal cases. The combination of that and reaching across the border is new.” The extradition case against Mr. O’Dwyer has turned him into something of a cause célèbre. Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, is leading a crusade to save him, with an online petition that has gathered over 225,000 signatures worldwide in two weeks. Still, the British home secretary, Theresa May, approved the extradition order in March and said Monday that she would let the order stand. Mr. O’Dwyer has appealed; a hearing in Britain is expected this fall. His lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. The federal prosecutors in New York who are handling the case also declined to comment. The criminal complaint against Mr. O’Dwyer is sealed. Mr. O’Dwyer’s story began in 2008 when he set up his Web site, TVShack.net, which allowed users to search for and link to other sites, including ones that the authorities say showed pirated movies and shows. Because the domain name was registered in the United States, it fell under the ambit of American law. The government shut down TVShack.net in summer 2010. Mr. O’Dwyer was unbowed. TVShack.net had been growing in popularity, and it made about $230,000 from advertising over the course of two years, federal prosecutors say. “America? They have nothing to do with me,” Mr. O’Dwyer’s mother said he had told her. He reopened his site as TVShack.cc, which he reckoned was beyond the reach of the United States. A few months later came a knock on the door from the British police. A judge ruled that Mr. O’Dwyer would not be prosecuted in Britain. Instead, the United States would seek to extradite him. His mother was stunned. “This is for fugitives and murderers and terrorists,” she recalled thinking. “Richard has never fled the scene of a crime. He has never left the U.K.!” A judge released Mr. O’Dwyer on bail. On his mother’s orders, he shut down his site, which makes it difficult to tell how it operated. At the heart of the O’Dwyer case is a question of what to do about Web sites that help users find unlicensed content. According to British court documents examined by The New York Times, the Justice Department argues that Mr. O’Dwyer enabled Internet users to easily avail themselves of copyrighted material by providing links to third-party sites that contained thousands of pirated films and television programs. Prosecutors say that on one day in 2010, his Web site contained links to seven films, described as the “most popular movies today,” that were still playing in theaters and had not been authorized for distribution on the Internet. Mr. O’Dwyer, prosecutors suggest, was aware the material was copyrighted. They cite an announcement on TVShack that urged users to be patient with download times because they were “saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together).” Ted Shapiro, the Motion Picture Association of America’s general counsel for Europe, said the fact that Mr. O’Dwyer had not stored illegal material on TVShack itself signaled that he knew how to evade the law. “The fact that the U.S. government is willing to step up and protect content from the film industry and the copyright sector is an amazingly important thing,” Mr. Shapiro said. “We are talking about protecting things Americans are good at.” Mr. O’Dwyer’s backers say his site was effectively a search engine. To prosecute him, they argue, would set a dangerous precedent — tantamount to holding one person accountable for the acts of another. “Something that lets you find illegal content can also help you find legal content,” said Mitch Stoltz, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “When you go after intermediaries, you’re going to shut down legal and legitimate speech and commerce and innovation to get at what they perceive as illegal copyright violation.” Peter Decherney, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the book “Hollywood’s Copyright Wars: From Edison to the Internet,” said the O’Dwyer case showed how difficult Hollywood has made it for people in other countries to consume American entertainment online. Sites like Netflix, Hulu and iTunes have limited offerings overseas, if any. The demand for American entertainment drives a lucrative underground economy of pirated movies and television shows. “In many other countries, unauthorized distribution is the only form of online distribution,” said Mr. Decherney, “and consumers will continue to make Robin Hoods out of anyone who can help them get to media online.” -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 14 09:48:20 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 06:48:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> Good point Alejandro… to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we might rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one… The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research essay for some appropriate grad student… M From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Izumi, a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies with it as the process takes place over the coming months. One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on decisions. We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that yields a few very clear results. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _____ Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jul 14 10:45:58 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:45:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B6A5A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? [Milton L Mueller] I wouldn't say Wow. It is a good and interesting development, but not as major as it may first appear. Here is a response I sent to another list, which some of you may have seen already: This is both a victory, in that the ITU is responding to our pressure, and a clever move by the ITU. The combination of online public comment and many national consultations would in effect enhance and support the importance of the ITU and the WCIT process, which is what ITU wants. If the ITRs were in fact a major move to take over the Internet, then investing a lot of time and effort into these national consultations would be worth it. Since the WCIT almost certainly cannot do that and does not pose the kind of threat some people think it does, I worry about the misdirection of resources implicit in such a major nation-by-nation effort. I also worry about legitimizing and strengthening ITU's role in Internet governance by encouraging people to look to ITU as a place where it happens. A key question for me is whether the ITU website, which the press release says will allow "all stakeholders [to] express their opinions on the content of the latest version of TD64" will regularly update TD-64 as it is amended during the negotiations, or whether it will just post the current version of TD-64, which we already have via WCITleaks.org. [snip] The key question is whether the online public platforms continually update the information about what is being proposed, and whether proposals are identified as they are placed there. The latter is not impossible, but I would not get your hopes up too much about that; the idea that ITU will suddenly move to a fully transparent process during its negotiations seems uncharacteristic. Another issue is whether national delegations will actually read the comments; governments tend not to be very good at that, generally, especially the worst ones. Even ICANN's Board is not so great at that. The national consultations could be useful if properly handled by civil society; i.e., if participants actually know what is being proposed by their governments, target their opposition on a few things, explain clearly why they oppose it, and have alternatives. IF on the other hand they go in with a grab-bag of demands that don't relate specifically to the ITRs and (worst of all) actually reinforce the importance of the ITRs by turning them into a WSIS-like declaration of how the world's governments can lead us into the promised land of the "knowledge society" then it would really backfire. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Jul 14 10:52:50 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:52:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48351893@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, thanks for picking up this idea. I have no objection to using the Open Government Partnership standards but do have a couple reasons to prefer the ICANN ATRT (or other related) ones: 1. the IGC professes to have intimate knowledge of all that is wrong with ICANN from innumerable angles. That deep knowledge would serve well as a tool to investigate the ITU's recent announcement and its materialization; 2. ICANN - warts and all - has gone through a lot more development, including several reforms and many evaluations, while OGP is still largely untested; 3. ICANN seems more relevant as a comparison since it deals with Internet-only issues, and makes decisions that are binding among its players. The OGP seems to be a bit more loose in this second respect. There is a simple structure in which you set up a list of organizations you want to compare and a set of criteria like democracy, participants' impact on decisions, procedures, access to documents, access to discussions, and mechanisms for review and redress of decisions. You get a table with 5-7 columns and as many lines as organizations you include. You evaluate in successive iterations of increased refinement so you always have something usable in hand. Several different groups and approaches may start independently and compare notes. And as you say, a few graduate theses get written if you wish. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 14 de julio de 2012 08:48 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Asunto: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Good point Alejandro… to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we might rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one… The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research essay for some appropriate grad student… M From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Izumi, a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies with it as the process takes place over the coming months. One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on decisions. We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that yields a few very clear results. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jul 14 12:41:16 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:41:16 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and international - organisations according to criteria like openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of International Internet Organisations". wolfgang ________________________________ Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Sa 14.07.2012 15:48 An: 'Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Izumi AIZU' Betreff: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Good point Alejandro... to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we might rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one... The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research essay for some appropriate grad student... M From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Izumi, a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies with it as the process takes place over the coming months. One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on decisions. We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that yields a few very clear results. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012?7?14???? Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jul 14 09:03:30 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:03:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF - initial draft proposal online In-Reply-To: <20120711185520.6A8011AF0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120710134934.F1B381AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B3507@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120711052432.DB01F1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <07B722E0-882C-4C2A-9DE8-D036EF7D12CD@acm.org> <20120711152041.EBCDC1AF0@quill.bollow.ch> <8DEF17BA-C5B3-44B8-AD3F-7B07013205C6@ella.com> <20120711185520.6A8011AF0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 11/07/2012, at 8:55 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Yes, that would be nice. Although at the current stage, when the main > goal must be to convince some governments to support the idea, I'm > not sure how much an endorsement from IAB and/or ISOC would help. In my view endorsement by ISOC is even less likely than endorsement by governments, due to the "not invented here syndrome" that raises their hackles against any Internet governance innovation from outside of the technical community framework. But that's why, as I mentioned to you privately some weeks ago, I supported you doing this by way of an RFC, because it would signal that this proposal is in the spirit of the Internet community's grassroots approach to Internet governance, rather than the UN approach of multi-stakeholderism shoehorned into an intergovernmental structure. This way, irrespective of its content, it is more likely to be read by Internet community members, and less likely to be rejected out of hand, than if it was on ITU or UN letterhead or came from a government. By coincidence, read what I wrote in 2004 in my PhD thesis proposal, which I only just rediscovered: > The thesis may in fact decide that the IETF's RFC process should be used or adapted for the development of consensus-based model legal norms for the Internet. The recommendations of the thesis, which are expected to propose a collaborative style of Internet governance as a model for nation states to use in the drafting and passage of their own Internet legal legislation, may themselves form the subject of the first such RFC. Convincing governments, of course, will also be hard. I note that your proposal deviates from the thoughts that I had shared with you in this respect: > The Committee shall attempt to make decisions by rough consensus. If this fails, a meeting at which decision making by majority vote is allowed may be convened no earlier than 16 hours after the rough consensus process has failed. Whereas my contention is that there should be a rough consensus not only within the Committee, but also within each stakeholder group that comprises the Committee. Although that raises the prospect of deadlock enormously, and will make the job of facilitation of consensus more difficult (and more important), I feel that it is the only way that governments will deign to participate in a forum that could issue recommendations that a majority of them might disagree with (the same is true of the private sector and technical community, probably - whereas civil society are a trusting load of mugs and would be game to try overall rough consensus!). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 14:02:54 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:32:54 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: While I welcome ITU's decision to partially open up, I wish to pose the question that bothers me at the moment : Why is the ITU becoming so nice all of a sudden? And I share Fahd Batayneh's caution on this development. Sivasubramanian M. On Jul 14, 2012 10:14 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started > to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and > international - organisations according to criteria like openess, > transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, > bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for > Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of > International Internet Organisations". > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Sa 14.07.2012 15:48 > An: 'Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Izumi > AIZU' > Betreff: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for > public consultation and open access > > > > Good point Alejandro... to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we might > rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership > principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as > benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of > the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one... > > > > The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this > stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of > steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I > think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't > include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, > which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research > essay for some appropriate grad student... > > > > M > > > > > > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for > public consultation and open access > > > > Izumi, > > > > a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this > community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies > with it as the process takes place over the coming months. > > > > One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and > Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on > how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the > ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, > access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on > decisions. > > > > We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a > good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. > It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that > yields a few very clear results. > > > > Yours, > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [ > iza at anr.org] > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein > Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for > public consultation and open access > > Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? > > Further plan of action? > > > > Izumi > > > > 2012?7?14???? Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: > > Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and > open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be > created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx > > M > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Sat Jul 14 15:53:35 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:53:35 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: +1 We see this as a broader rejection of openness more than a commitment to it, despite the ITU's "landmark" announcement language. For those interested see our short blog response to ITU decision: https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/itu-governing-council-to-post-some-planning-materials-rejects-open-access I note also Public Knowledge's response: http://www.publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-disappointed-itu-documents-remain Brett On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > While I welcome ITU's decision to partially open up, I wish to pose the > question that bothers me at the moment : Why is the ITU becoming so nice > all of a sudden? > > And I share Fahd Batayneh's caution on this development. > > Sivasubramanian M. > On Jul 14, 2012 10:14 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - >> started to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and >> international - organisations according to criteria like openess, >> transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, >> bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for >> Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of >> International Internet Organisations". >> >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Sa 14.07.2012 15:48 >> An: 'Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> 'Izumi AIZU' >> Betreff: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal >> for public consultation and open access >> >> >> >> Good point Alejandro... to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we >> might rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership >> principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as >> benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of >> the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one... >> >> >> >> The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this >> stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of >> steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I >> think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't >> include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, >> which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research >> essay for some appropriate grad student... >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] >> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein >> Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal >> for public consultation and open access >> >> >> >> Izumi, >> >> >> >> a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this >> community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies >> with it as the process takes place over the coming months. >> >> >> >> One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and >> Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on >> how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the >> ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, >> access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on >> decisions. >> >> >> >> We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a >> good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. >> It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that >> yields a few very clear results. >> >> >> >> Yours, >> >> >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU >> [iza at anr.org] >> Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for >> public consultation and open access >> >> Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? >> >> Further plan of action? >> >> >> >> Izumi >> >> >> >> 2012?7?14???? Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: >> >> Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and >> open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be >> created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow Key ID: 0x312B641A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracey at traceynaughton.com Sat Jul 14 19:39:27 2012 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:39:27 +1000 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> I hope a gesture of appreciation will be made. The beast has finally got on the program! Tracey Naughton 22 Adams Street Castlemaine 3450 Landline: +(613) 5470 6853 Mobile: +(61) 0413 019707 Skype: tnaughton9999 On 14 Jul 2012, at 5:49 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? Further plan of action? Izumi 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx M -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jul 14 20:50:22 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:50:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> H, I agree. A step in the right direction should be praised so that they will hopefully continue making forward steps. I also hope the some NGOs and other groups do take them up on their offer of free sector membership. If IGC has sufficient structure to pull it off, it should. Now, how do we get into the WCIT meeting in December? avri On 14 Jul 2012, at 19:39, Tracey Naughton wrote: > I hope a gesture of appreciation will be made. The beast has finally got on the program! > > Tracey Naughton > > 22 Adams Street > Castlemaine 3450 > > Landline: +(613) 5470 6853 > Mobile: +(61) 0413 019707 > Skype: tnaughton9999 > > On 14 Jul 2012, at 5:49 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? > Further plan of action? > > Izumi > > > 2012年7月14日土曜日 Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: > Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and > open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be > created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx > > M > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jul 14 20:52:56 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:52:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, Great idea. We sort f did it in WGIG. It would be a great recurring exercise for the IGF. As for Dynamic Coalitions, do they work, or do we need some new mechanisms? avri On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and international - organisations according to criteria like openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of International Internet Organisations". > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Sa 14.07.2012 15:48 > An: 'Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Izumi AIZU' > Betreff: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access > > > > Good point Alejandro... to extend it a bit, I'm wondering whether we might rather begin a process of adopting the Open Government Partnership principles and process http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ here as benchmarks and something that the IGC might look to promote with other of the agencies with which it is in contact (the IGF being one... > > > > The ICANN A&T Review may be rather more robust than the OGP one at this stage but the longer term OGP process is gathering a significant head of steam and including international agencies within that process would be, I think, a significant step for forward for CS overall (no reason we couldn't include both as part of the review/benchmarking process you are suggesting, which BTW would make an excellent Master's thesis or extended research essay for some appropriate grad student... > > > > M > > > > > > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:55 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Izumi AIZU; Michael Gurstein > Subject: RE: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access > > > > Izumi, > > > > a creative approach, and one which would speak for consistency in this community, would be to set up a benchmark and see how far the ITU complies with it as the process takes place over the coming months. > > > > One particularly relevant benchmark would be the Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN or related documents, mostly the updates on how ICANN has taken measures to comply with the recommendations of the ATRT. See if non-governmental participants have access to key documents, access to discussions, the ability to organize themselves, and impact on decisions. > > > > We all know that ICANN needs to improve in all these aspects but it's a good benchmark. I've once graded several organizations related to WSIS. It's a complex exercise in evaluation but it can be done in a way that yields a few very clear results. > > > > Yours, > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > > Desde: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] en nombre de Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de julio de 2012 14:49 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Gurstein > Asunto: Re: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access > > Wow. Any comments for IGC to react to this decision? Welcome statement? > > Further plan of action? > > > > Izumi > > > > 2012?7?14???? Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com: > > Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and > open access to key conference document: Online public platforms will be > created to enable multi-stakeholder consultation.... > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/46.aspx > > M > > > > > > -- >>> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jul 14 22:00:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:00:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> Hi On Jul 15, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Great idea. > > We sort f did it in WGIG. It would be a great recurring exercise for the IGF. > > As for Dynamic Coalitions, do they work, or do we need some new mechanisms? > > On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and international - organisations according to criteria like openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of International Internet Organisations". In 2006 I proposed a working group on this consistent with the TA mandate that IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." I was told in no uncertain terms that this was doubly a non-starter, since a) working groups are a radioactive construct that necessarily implies heavy UN bureaucratic machinery and negotiated outcomes (hence the subsequent DC construct as an anodyne alternative); and b) no private sector, multistakeholder, or intergovernmental institution/process involved in global IG would be happy to have outsiders in the IGF assessing what it does. Some subsequent beating of the drum and the APC-UNECE-COE effort to devise a code of good practice http://www.apc.org/en/node/9507/ ultimately led to a Main Session on the WSIS principles in Sharm, at which org reps each got up to say that they fully embody the WSIS principles, full stop. That session was deemed by some to have been less than successful and was hence dropped rather than added into the standard MS rotation like IG4D. Things have moved on since then and one could argue that it is now time to make a serious effort to put working groups back on the table. I know this didn't get consensus in the WGIGF but CS could nevertheless flesh out the case for WGs as flexibly configured non-bureaucratic processes that would study and report views (including divergent ones) on pressing issues on which progress cannot be achieved via DCs, particularly in light of generally limited governmental/IO participation. My top candidates for WGs would be: *Enhanced Cooperation, per some of the May CSTD interventions, including APC's http://www.apc.org/en/news/enhancing-cooperation-among-stakeholders-internet (much more likely to attract governments etc. than something under IETF, which carries additional internal burdens) *Embodiment of the WSIS principles in global IG processes/"openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP " *IG4D (a similar cross-cutting criteria-based exercise, e.g. as proposed in my chapter in the Sharm book http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf ) Putting the WG construct back on the table for discussion in the MAG and beyond (including at the IGC's Baku workshop) would be a concrete and useful contribution. Do others here dis/agree? If the latter, would anyone be willing to collaborate on a text of 3-5 pages laying out the rationale? Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 01:48:56 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:48:56 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, First of all I would Iike to share your concerns having been through the puddle of similar bumpy rides. My reason to incline towards exploring how the ICANN governance model functioned was partly encouraged by an incident that took place on the closed MAG list. I had proposed a similar DC on Accountability and Transparency or more closely to the AoC inspired approach (but multistakelder led) of such International bodies. This happened after the EURODIG in Geneva and I was both bashed on the list and threatened offline by a MAG colleague from a different stakeholder group that such international bodies could hurt me and I was blindly following western CS agenda and this would never be my country's position. Interestingly everyone that bashed the idea were from the same stakeholder group....well anyways... Simply said, having been part of the IG4D exercise and from what I shared above and as you detailed, such a dynamic coalition is necessary but the participation in it has to be monitored to exclude discriminating and threatening individuals that are trying to play as if they've got everything under control and in their grip, especially a number of them from my region. Anyways, I am in support of this DC proposal. Fouad Bajwa On Jul 15, 2012 7:00 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 15, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Great idea. > > We sort f did it in WGIG. It would be a great recurring exercise for the > IGF. > > As for Dynamic Coalitions, do they work, or do we need some new mechanisms? > > On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started > to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and > international - organisations according to criteria like openess, > transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, > bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for > Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of > International Internet Organisations". > > > > In 2006 I proposed a working group on this consistent with the TA mandate > that IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet Governance processes." I was told in no uncertain > terms that this was doubly a non-starter, since a) working groups are a > radioactive construct that necessarily implies heavy UN bureaucratic > machinery and negotiated outcomes (hence the subsequent DC construct as an > anodyne alternative); and b) no private sector, multistakeholder, or > intergovernmental institution/process involved in global IG would be happy > to have outsiders in the IGF assessing what it does. Some subsequent > beating of the drum and the APC-UNECE-COE effort to devise a code of good > practice http://www.apc.org/en/node/9507/ ultimately led to a Main > Session on the WSIS principles in Sharm, at which org reps each got up to > say that they fully embody the WSIS principles, full stop. That session > was deemed by some to have been less than successful and was hence dropped > rather than added into the standard MS rotation like IG4D. > > Things have moved on since then and one could argue that it is now time to > make a serious effort to put working groups back on the table. I know this > didn't get consensus in the WGIGF but CS could nevertheless flesh out the > case for WGs as flexibly configured non-bureaucratic processes that would > study and report views (including divergent ones) on pressing issues on > which progress cannot be achieved via DCs, particularly in light of > generally limited governmental/IO participation. My top candidates for WGs > would be: > > *Enhanced Cooperation, per some of the May CSTD interventions, including > APC's > http://www.apc.org/en/news/enhancing-cooperation-among-stakeholders-internet (much > more likely to attract governments etc. than something under IETF, which > carries additional internal burdens) > > *Embodiment of the WSIS principles in global IG processes/"openess, > transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, > bottom up PDP " > > *IG4D (a similar cross-cutting criteria-based exercise, e.g. as proposed > in my chapter in the Sharm book > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf ) > > Putting the WG construct back on the table for discussion in the MAG and > beyond (including at the IGC's Baku workshop) would be a concrete and > useful contribution. Do others here dis/agree? If the latter, would > anyone be willing to collaborate on a text of 3-5 pages laying out the > rationale? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 15 03:26:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:26:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4 at ella.com>, at 20:50:22 on Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes >Now, how do we get into the WCIT meeting in December? You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. Details of the national delegates are on the ITU membership website, and always have been. The ITU's scheme they just announced seems to be[1] a way of posting comments which your national delegation can (but not MUST) read ahead of their preparatory meetings for the WCIT - many rounds of which have already taken place. During the meeting I'm sure they'll be too busy to read any last-minnute contributions. [1] But I've only read the press releases. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 15 11:09:36 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:09:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] The Libertarians Discover Internet Governance: Ron and Rand Paul launch crusade for Internet Freedom Message-ID: <00d401cd629b$e61967d0$b24c3770$@gmail.com> http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/15/ron-and-rand-paul-launch-a-crusade-for -internet-freedom/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled attachment 00196.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Jul 15 12:36:03 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:36:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <491A06B8-C57B-42B3-BDC6-E24A7D220CD7@ella.com> On 14 Jul 2012, at 22:00, William Drake wrote: > > *Enhanced Cooperation, per some of the May CSTD interventions, including APC's http://www.apc.org/en/news/enhancing-cooperation-among-stakeholders-internet (much more likely to attract governments etc. than something under IETF, which carries additional internal burdens) > > *Embodiment of the WSIS principles in global IG processes/"openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP " > > *IG4D (a similar cross-cutting criteria-based exercise, e.g. as proposed in my chapter in the Sharm book http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf ) I think this is good. All 3 of these should either become or continue to be cross-cutting themes for the IGF. And perhaps that is the key to the cross-cutting themes that sometimes recognized by the short shrift* rather than by the focus they have gotten. Perhaps to be a cross-cutting theme means there must be an ongoing 12 month/year effort on these topic - not just the customary lets plan a big get together so we can talk once a year approach the IGF currently takes. these working groups could, e.g. meet at every consultation** and do list and online work between. > Putting the WG construct back on the table for discussion in the MAG and beyond (including at the IGC's Baku workshop) would be a concrete and useful contribution. Do others here dis/agree? I agree. What we have to get away from is the UN model of Working Groups. The IGF is not part of the UN system, even though the UN is still administratively responsible for it at this point. I maintain that this need not always be the case since it is obvious that the process of "initiating a forum" is done and we are now involved in a maturing forum that no longer needs the UN's sovereignty. But beyond what happens in the future with IGF administration, this also mean that when the IGF say WG, it does not mean an UN WG. What it needs to mean is a IGF WG, which will be as different from an UN WG as it is from an IETF WG or from an ICANN WG or from an ... WG. avri * short shrift: rapid and unsympathetic dismissal; curt treatment: e.g. the judge gave short shrift to an argument based on the right to free speech. • archaic little time between condemnation and execution or punishment. (from built in dictionary OSX) ** and perhaps these consultation need to start moving around the world and perhaps should start being associated with other events as was once the original concept. Certainly the WGs could meet in association with other meetings many of the IGF flying circus also attend. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Jul 15 12:40:22 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:40:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> Message-ID: <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6@ella.com> On 15 Jul 2012, at 03:26, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4 at ella.com>, at 20:50:22 on Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes > >> Now, how do we get into the WCIT meeting in December? > > You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. Been trying for years. The US delegation does not want to hear from the likes of me - they don't even let me on the mailing list. I would prefer to see the ITU follow the pattern is revolutionized in the creation of WSIS. It allowed the creation of the WSIS multistakeholder model and it should build on its good work and open the WCIT to the other stakeholders. I think it is a problem that we remain beholden to national delegations that get to decide who they invite and who they don't We are stakeholders in our own right and deserve at least WSIS level multistakeholder participation. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Jul 15 15:09:14 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:09:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6@ella.com> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6 at ella.com>, at 12:40:22 on Sun, 15 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes >> You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got >>a relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. > >Been trying for years. The US delegation does not want to hear from >the likes of me They didn't seem to mind talking to me. (Nor did the UK and several others). That's what I do - talk to people, whoever they are. >they don't even let me on the mailing list. Which mailing list is that? I wouldn't expect to be given a TIES account lightly. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Jul 15 19:25:47 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:25:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6@ella.com> Message-ID: <081D1BE1-6ED4-4608-B487-0CEB24D001EB@ella.com> On 15 Jul 2012, at 15:09, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <74B3537B-E3D1-46F6-9A70-18DEF6454BF6 at ella.com>, at 12:40:22 on Sun, 15 Jul 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got >>> a relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. >> >> Been trying for years. The US delegation does not want to hear from >> the likes of me > > They didn't seem to mind talking to me. (Nor did the UK and several others). That's what I do - talk to people, whoever they are. I guess i am jealous. must be nice to have people talk to you. > >> they don't even let me on the mailing list. > > Which mailing list is that? no, i was talking about the US International Telecommunication Advisory (ITAC) mailing list. and while I find the whole issue of US participation in ITU extremely opaque, I had gotten the impression this list was one of the vehicles for contributing. Course I may have been wrong. Anyway when they kicked everyone off for spring cleaning (re-registering last year) they never let me back on. > wouldn't expect to be given a TIES account lightly. Of course not. Had one of those once when I worked at ETRI as a researcher in ROK. but it eventually got cancelled and that I never figured to apply for again since I was no longer at ETRI. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jul 15 19:55:54 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:55:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> My 2 cents: Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). The IG specialists might then come along. Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. And as to effectiveness, the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles came up with a draft Charter, and the 10 Punchy Principles, now available in over 20 languages, so all in all I would say there has been some degree of effectiveness, even working with the DC constraints. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi Bill, First of all I would Iike to share your concerns having been through the puddle of similar bumpy rides. My reason to incline towards exploring how the ICANN governance model functioned was partly encouraged by an incident that took place on the closed MAG list. I had proposed a similar DC on Accountability and Transparency or more closely to the AoC inspired approach (but multistakelder led) of such International bodies. This happened after the EURODIG in Geneva and I was both bashed on the list and threatened offline by a MAG colleague from a different stakeholder group that such international bodies could hurt me and I was blindly following western CS agenda and this would never be my country's position. Interestingly everyone that bashed the idea were from the same stakeholder group....well anyways... Simply said, having been part of the IG4D exercise and from what I shared above and as you detailed, such a dynamic coalition is necessary but the participation in it has to be monitored to exclude discriminating and threatening individuals that are trying to play as if they've got everything under control and in their grip, especially a number of them from my region. Anyways, I am in support of this DC proposal. Fouad Bajwa On Jul 15, 2012 7:00 AM, "William Drake" > wrote: Hi On Jul 15, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Great idea. We sort f did it in WGIG. It would be a great recurring exercise for the IGF. As for Dynamic Coalitions, do they work, or do we need some new mechanisms? On 14 Jul 2012, at 12:41, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: During the WGIG time some academics - as Alejandro will remember - started to call for a general becnhmnarking of all - intergovernmental and international - organisations according to criteria like openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP etc. The analysis was never done. Would be a good subject for Baku or a new "Dynamic Coalition on Transparency and Accountybility of International Internet Organisations". In 2006 I proposed a working group on this consistent with the TA mandate that IGF "Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes." I was told in no uncertain terms that this was doubly a non-starter, since a) working groups are a radioactive construct that necessarily implies heavy UN bureaucratic machinery and negotiated outcomes (hence the subsequent DC construct as an anodyne alternative); and b) no private sector, multistakeholder, or intergovernmental institution/process involved in global IG would be happy to have outsiders in the IGF assessing what it does. Some subsequent beating of the drum and the APC-UNECE-COE effort to devise a code of good practice http://www.apc.org/en/node/9507/ ultimately led to a Main Session on the WSIS principles in Sharm, at which org reps each got up to say that they fully embody the WSIS principles, full stop. That session was deemed by some to have been less than successful and was hence dropped rather than added into the standard MS rotation like IG4D. Things have moved on since then and one could argue that it is now time to make a serious effort to put working groups back on the table. I know this didn't get consensus in the WGIGF but CS could nevertheless flesh out the case for WGs as flexibly configured non-bureaucratic processes that would study and report views (including divergent ones) on pressing issues on which progress cannot be achieved via DCs, particularly in light of generally limited governmental/IO participation. My top candidates for WGs would be: *Enhanced Cooperation, per some of the May CSTD interventions, including APC's http://www.apc.org/en/news/enhancing-cooperation-among-stakeholders-internet (much more likely to attract governments etc. than something under IETF, which carries additional internal burdens) *Embodiment of the WSIS principles in global IG processes/"openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP " *IG4D (a similar cross-cutting criteria-based exercise, e.g. as proposed in my chapter in the Sharm book http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf ) Putting the WG construct back on the table for discussion in the MAG and beyond (including at the IGC's Baku workshop) would be a concrete and useful contribution. Do others here dis/agree? If the latter, would anyone be willing to collaborate on a text of 3-5 pages laying out the rationale? Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 15 21:31:01 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:31:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8DAACDA9-EEDA-4EFD-933C-AEB66DEE735C@ciroap.org> On 15/07/2012, at 10:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Things have moved on since then and one could argue that it is now time to make a serious effort to put working groups back on the table. I know this didn't get consensus in the WGIGF but CS could nevertheless flesh out the case for WGs as flexibly configured non-bureaucratic processes that would study and report views (including divergent ones) on pressing issues on which progress cannot be achieved via DCs, particularly in light of generally limited governmental/IO participation. My top candidates for WGs would be: > > *Enhanced Cooperation, per some of the May CSTD interventions, including APC's http://www.apc.org/en/news/enhancing-cooperation-among-stakeholders-internet (much more likely to attract governments etc. than something under IETF, which carries additional internal burdens) > > *Embodiment of the WSIS principles in global IG processes/"openess, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, membership, acess, diversity, bottom up PDP " > > *IG4D (a similar cross-cutting criteria-based exercise, e.g. as proposed in my chapter in the Sharm book http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf ) > > Putting the WG construct back on the table for discussion in the MAG and beyond (including at the IGC's Baku workshop) would be a concrete and useful contribution. Do others here dis/agree? If the latter, would anyone be willing to collaborate on a text of 3-5 pages laying out the rationale? Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jul 15 22:15:48 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:15:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> Hi On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > My 2 cents: > > Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that. > > The IG specialists might then come along. > > Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-) There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent. There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind). There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative. There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere. There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again. On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. Agree with the last phrase but not the rest. I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jul 15 22:21:20 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 02:21:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Ok fine, if 'working groups' inspire Genevans, let's go for it. All I am still missing is the part where you explain why the UN freaking out over the phrase 'working groups' the last time their prospect was raised, either no longer matters; or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future, through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked. Lee ________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; Malcom, Jeremy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: My 2 cents: Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that. The IG specialists might then come along. Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-) There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent. There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind). There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative. There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere. There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again. On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. Agree with the last phrase but not the rest. I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jul 15 22:48:49 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:48:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> Hi Lee On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Ok fine, if 'working groups' inspire Genevans, let's go for it. Please, Genevois…it's not Wisconsin. > > All I am still missing is the part where you explain why the UN freaking out over the phrase 'working groups' the last time their prospect was raised, Not the UN. Everyone other than the G77 and the IGC (for entirely different reasons). > either no longer matters; Still does, it'd be a very hard sell, as the WGIGF demonstrated. But when the WSIS looked to be a train wreck, the actors that initially opposed it accepted that there was nowhere to go besides launching an IGF. If they start to recognize the prospects of a steady stream of varyingly sized train wrecks, maybe they'll also start to consider taking the IGF seriously to be the least bad alternative. But the case would have to be made effectively, which would require redirecting and focusing energies. > or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future, through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked. Oh yes, grand plan, fully elaborated, right here in my pocket ;-) More like muddling through, groping in the dark, wishing on a star…pick your metaphor. Cheers, Bill > > > From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; Malcom, Jeremy > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups > > Hi > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> My 2 cents: >> >> Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). > > Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that. > >> >> The IG specialists might then come along. >> >> Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. > > I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-) There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent. There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind). There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative. There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere. There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again. > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. > > Agree with the last phrase but not the rest. I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jul 15 23:30:39 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:30:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I was referring to my Geneva(n) New York neighbors ; ) - ok whatever, pardon mois. But I still can't picture how your social media mobilization campaign for IGF 'working groups' is going to gain adherents. Unless you just help Norbert flesh out his ECTF proposal, which comes with the ability to launch working groups built in; reporting to/from IGF. ________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:48 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Malcom, Jeremy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi Lee On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Ok fine, if 'working groups' inspire Genevans, let's go for it. Please, Genevois…it's not Wisconsin. All I am still missing is the part where you explain why the UN freaking out over the phrase 'working groups' the last time their prospect was raised, Not the UN. Everyone other than the G77 and the IGC (for entirely different reasons). either no longer matters; Still does, it'd be a very hard sell, as the WGIGF demonstrated. But when the WSIS looked to be a train wreck, the actors that initially opposed it accepted that there was nowhere to go besides launching an IGF. If they start to recognize the prospects of a steady stream of varyingly sized train wrecks, maybe they'll also start to consider taking the IGF seriously to be the least bad alternative. But the case would have to be made effectively, which would require redirecting and focusing energies. or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future, through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked. Oh yes, grand plan, fully elaborated, right here in my pocket ;-) More like muddling through, groping in the dark, wishing on a star…pick your metaphor. Cheers, Bill ________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; Malcom, Jeremy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: My 2 cents: Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that. The IG specialists might then come along. Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-) There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent. There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind). There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative. There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere. There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again. On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. Agree with the last phrase but not the rest. I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 15 23:33:08 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:33:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50038B74.8050801@ciroap.org> On 16/07/12 11:30, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I was referring to my Geneva(n) New York neighbors ; ) - ok whatever, > pardon mois. > > But I still can't picture how your social media mobilization campaign > for IGF 'working groups' is going to gain adherents. > > Unless you just help Norbert flesh out his ECTF proposal, which comes > with the ability to launch working groups built in; reporting to/from IGF. Not forgetting, also, that the ECTF could merge back in with the IGF at a later date once it is shown to be independently viable. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer* 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 Follow @ConsumersInt Like us at www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 16 13:49:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:49:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> A number of the more progressive US civil society groups have warned against buying into the model that CS can only legitimately participate in policy making through national delegations. Post-WSIS, this is a major step backwards. > -----Original Message----- > You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a > relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 16 15:01:13 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:31:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 16, 2012 11:19 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > A number of the more progressive US civil society groups have warned against buying into the model that CS can only legitimately participate in policy making through national delegations. Post-WSIS, this is a major step backwards. +1 > > > -----Original Message----- > > You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a > > relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 16 15:58:25 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:58:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B779B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Bill's critique of Jeremy and Norbert's approach (re-invent the IGF and hope everyone shows up for it). It seems to me we have to get the IGF to work. The IGF itself, not a clone or a re-run. If we can't get the governments that were critical of the IG status quo, and the private sector players who were scared of any deviation from the IG status quo, to work with us properly in the context of the existing IGF, repeating the experiment in a new, even more marginalized venue, is unlikely to work. But I also have to agree with Lee: the centerpiece of the campaign has to be something more inspiring and motivating than whether we call something a "working group." I would suggest that we find an issue that people really want to do something about, such as evaluating ICANN, ITU, etc. as Bill suggested, and try to gain commitments from a critical mass of stakeholders to support some long-term initiative around that. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:31 PM To: William Drake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Malcom, Jeremy Subject: RE: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups I was referring to my Geneva(n) New York neighbors ; ) - ok whatever, pardon mois. But I still can't picture how your social media mobilization campaign for IGF 'working groups' is going to gain adherents. Unless you just help Norbert flesh out his ECTF proposal, which comes with the ability to launch working groups built in; reporting to/from IGF. ________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:48 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Malcom, Jeremy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi Lee On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Ok fine, if 'working groups' inspire Genevans, let's go for it. Please, Genevois...it's not Wisconsin. All I am still missing is the part where you explain why the UN freaking out over the phrase 'working groups' the last time their prospect was raised, Not the UN. Everyone other than the G77 and the IGC (for entirely different reasons). either no longer matters; Still does, it'd be a very hard sell, as the WGIGF demonstrated. But when the WSIS looked to be a train wreck, the actors that initially opposed it accepted that there was nowhere to go besides launching an IGF. If they start to recognize the prospects of a steady stream of varyingly sized train wrecks, maybe they'll also start to consider taking the IGF seriously to be the least bad alternative. But the case would have to be made effectively, which would require redirecting and focusing energies. or can be overcome in the not lightyears distant future, through what is I am sure a very inspiring strategem you've pre-cooked. Oh yes, grand plan, fully elaborated, right here in my pocket ;-) More like muddling through, groping in the dark, wishing on a star...pick your metaphor. Cheers, Bill ________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; Malcom, Jeremy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups Hi On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: My 2 cents: Since as far as I know noone can (now) stop us from proclaiming intent to launch a Dynamic Coalition on Open Internet Transparency or whatever name folks prefer, why not just do that and work to invite the government transparency folks, from government(s). Sure, if all we want is another space for kibitzing among ourselves, let's do that. The IG specialists might then come along. Instead, fighting a war to get to call something a 'working group'...well that's not the most inspiring battle cry. I readily admit that what counts as inspiring in Syracuse may be different from what counts in Geneva :-) There's a lot of history here that may not be apparent. There were reasons why the caucus supported WGs (but WGIGish peer-level multistakeholder able to reflect different views as 'outcomes,' not of the traditional UN kind). There were reasons why DCs were offered as an alternative. There were reasons why the governments we need dialogue with generally didn't engage in DCs, thereby limiting the value of the exercise and helping to undermine IGF and direct their energies elsewhere. There are reasons why the situation has changed and it's worth trying again. On Jul 16, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Norbert, how about adding the working group on promoting and assessing, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes, to the ECTF proposal? As William notes is one of the important missing elements of the IGF"s mandate, and also one I suggested for the new body that I outlined at http://jere.my/l/2w. I don't feel that yet another dynamic coalition would do this justice. Whilst many people are still skeptical of the ECTF proposal, we can discuss it more at the APrIGF this week. It may or may not have legs in the end, but an alternative approach to DCs is definitely needed. Agree with the last phrase but not the rest. I think we should be trying to strengthen the IGF and attract governments and stakeholders to seriously engage on the issues there, rather than proposing creation of another and competing mechanism that is even less likely to attract sufficient support and participation. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jul 16 17:43:30 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:43:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Landmark decision by ITU Council on proposal for public consultation and open access In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <60A7E3DA-4A2E-400A-90D8-4D0FC7C0EA4C@traceynaughton.com> <11B3A726-81F0-460A-967D-C816850BECA4@ella.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B7622 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 17:49:07 on Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >A number of the more progressive US civil society groups have warned >against buying into the model that CS can only legitimately participate >in policy making through national delegations. Post-WSIS, this is a >major step backwards. In the long term view, we could discuss this. In the short term, what else do you propose? ps Attaching yourself to the national delegation is rather more "alongside" than "through". >> -----Original Message----- >> You attach yourself to your national delegation. If you haven't got a >> relationship with them yet, time is running out to start building one. >> -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Mon Jul 16 18:58:18 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:58:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] ITU consultation and open access => IGF working groups In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B779B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <027801cd6113$7ceca990$76c5fcb0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4835174C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5fc901cd61c7$679b0050$36d100f0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCFDE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <54554CDA-5630-446F-86D9-06476111B90D@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B13A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<453AA518-5276-4E10-B3C2-B6B3AA08740F@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1CF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<3030F82D-5711-4DF1-BD81-E071551BA183@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B10B1F1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21B779B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <99B60C10-C669-47F2-8FBC-F31603ACC28E@telus.net> On 2012-07-16, at 12:58 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > But I also have to agree with Lee: the centerpiece of the campaign has to be something more inspiring and motivating than whether we call something a "working group." I would suggest that we find an issue that people really want to do something about, such as evaluating ICANN, ITU, etc. as Bill suggested, and try to