From iza at anr.org Sat Jun 30 20:26:07 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:26:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 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 < >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 30 22:14:01 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 14:14:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Thanks everyone. Yes, I will start working on a Draft Izumi and send to the list for comments etc. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Fri Jun 1 00:50:26 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:20:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <4FC84A12.3010805@ITforChange.net> On Friday 01 June 2012 02:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Why am I in FB and "agreed" with this terms of use? Very prosaic > explanation. Unfortunately, this is the dominant platform for online > communication in my country. My family and friends, who live in far > away cities, post their lives in FB. Not being in FB is missing a big > part of their lives; is losing the chance of following their > day-to-day. It means loss of emotional ties to me. And, since FB is > becoming a platform for general communication, political protests, and > so on, it would mean a handicap in my ability to socially engage and > make my views heard. So, do I have an option? Sure, but the cost of > this option is becoming higher everyday. Too high for me to call this > a real �option�. The suggestion to create a parallel FB if people are > not happy with the current one seems so out of the reality of an > average user that I will not make comments about it. > > Matthias has put this argument better than I could ever do it, so I quote: > > as soon as social network providers are so successful that their > networks are a "quasi-public sphere" they lose, it can be argued, the > right to use terms of service to limit international standards of > freedom of expression. The more successful and public a service is, > the fewer restrictions may be allowed. > "when a network becomes a 'quasi-public sphere', the providers TOS needs to be treated much more carefully than any typical contract between a producer and a consumer". I would like to rephrase Matthias here. It is not 'fewer restrictions' on limiting 'freedom of expression' alone .... there are several rights that need to be considered - communication, association, privacy, development etc... and though rights need to be seen as a whole without division or hierarchies, there are obvious conflicts / contestations in the actual implementation of rights for different groups... Hence the solution is not just 'fewer restrictions' which limit foe... but rather global regulation which can manage this complex interplay of rights in these virtual public spaces... and TOS of business entities cannot play this role. national regulation is inadequate as we see - Brazil's own laws could not protect rights of her citizens against FB's suo moto actions... de-facto regulation by US based corporates (or USG / EU) is also undemocratic..... regards, Guru btw we had a similar case in India in the 'pink chaddi' campaign by feminist groups, which FB blocked - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Chaddi_Campaign "Shortly after the campaign took off, the campaign's Facebook group began to be attacked by trolls and was eventually broken into. Attackers renamed the group and included racist slurs and death threats in its description. The attacks continued despite appeals to Facebook's support department for help, and eventually Facebook disabled the account of the group's administrator and access to the group. The group has decided to avoid Facebook in future" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 02:28:32 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:28:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: (message from Marilia Maciel on Fri, 1 Jun 2012 00:06:10 -0300) 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> Message-ID: <20120601062832.C53DB1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Marilia Maciel wrote: > I think that the questions you propose are good. Could you just explain a > little further why you believe we should not separate CIR and non-CIR? I > think that a neat separation would bring more clarity to the debate. I don't have a very strong view on this, but i think that the fundamental challenge of setting up a good institutional framework for Enhanced Cooperation (including appropriate working processes, appropriate principles to guide these processes, and an appropriate oversight function of some kind to ensure that the principles are followed in actual reality and not perverted by means of powerful actors hypocitically just paying them lip service while ensuring that something different happens in reality) is pretty much the same independently of the type of substantive issues (there's CIR issues, non-CIR issues, issues with CIR and non-CIR aspects, and issues where it's hard to decide into what category they should be classified). In my view, the key fundamental challenge is that any effective Enhanced Cooperation framework will cause the power of some currently overly powerful US companies, as well as the power of the US government to act on behalf of the US copyright industry, to be deminished. The US government as well as a significant part of the technical community will be vigorously opposed to anything with this effect, because they will perceive any proposal to change the status quo as a threat to what they perceive as "our ability to make things work right". My main concern about the proposal of structuring the Enhanced Cooperation discussion into a CIR and a non-CIR part is that such a structuring might have effects like * making it even more difficult than it is already to address that fundamental challenge, because what needs to be said to address the fundamental challenge may not necessarily fit well under either the CIR nor the non-CIR heading, * dividing the people who are passionate about making Enhanced Cooperation happen, according to what subject area is where their main substantive concerns are, instead of allowing us to work united on establishing a good Enhanced Cooperation framework. I'd suggest that we should work together at the present stage and only go our separate ways to work on different types of substative concerns after the crucial first step of establishing a good framework for Enhanced Cooperation has been achieved. 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 jac at apcwomen.org Fri Jun 1 03:05:09 2012 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:05:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <4FC869A5.6010709@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Sala: What if facebook was merely trying to comply with US laws > and other countries laws that expressly prohibit obscenity. > > MM: Sala, you are taking a commercial/juridical stance. I am taking > a political stance. Two points. First, I do not think that is up to > FB to give concreteness to a notion of nudity or obscenity. This is > a very complicated debate, of public interest, that cannot be > carried out by the board of company alone, whose role is, > naturally, to maximize profit and minimize risks. JK: +1 Second, I personally do not care to which country law they > are complying with. My point is that they are enforcing a FB policy > norm that does not echo laws and common sense in Brazil and this > interpretation is going against the fight of feminist movements and > movements fighting for sexual rights here. We already have our > internal disputes with conservative movements, as was pointed out > by Jac, when he mentioned the Azeredo Bill. We do not need this > external push from FB giving a restrictive interpretation of what > is obscene and what is moral. It just reinforces the conservative > forces we are trying to fight. So, FB juridical compliance with > some country's law is translating into a political setback here. JK: To add to this as well, companies (and this is Google's regularly heard mantra) often say that look, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to comply to national laws. But in reality, this isn't always the case and the criteria and decision-making processes isn't clear. E.g. Google banning abortion on google adwords for a list of countries, including Malaysia, where abortion is perfectly legal under particular circumstances. So compliance with national law isn't even always the case. More often than not, over-compliance/paranoia/cultural relativist assumptions with national laws constricts free flow of information and expression - which again, makes me worry when the primary point of engagement is t national level. compared against e.g. womenonweb who had their picture that describes how to use an abortion pill censored by FB, and raised huge protests against which, which resulted in reinstatement and an apology. I guess this is around economic power, and is profit-driven, but then consumer/user rights can play a part? j > > Of course, more countries with a more conservative approach to > sexual rights could argue the opposite, that FB disrespects local > moral standards. What is the solution? It can't be one size fits > all, otherwise we will only see ankles of women in FB. > Fragmentation on service in each jurisdiction? I don't think this > should be the way... But I think that, definitely, this should be a > theme for global discussion. > > Badouin, thanks! I appreciate. We will keep in touch. > > Best, Marília > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann < > matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> since Facebook's "Abuse Standards" were leaked in February we >> know according to which policies Facebook policies content. I've >> summed at the discussion here: >> http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html. >> >> >> >> There are a number of issues involved. One is that prima facie and in >> purely legal terms a social networking company can choose to >> censor certain content, if its users have agreed to submitting to >> this censorship, as part of the terms of service to which they >> submit to when creating an account. >> >> But there are limits to this: A company cannot engage in >> arbitrary censorship. Further, as soon as social network >> providers are so successful that their networks are a >> "quasi-public sphere" they lose, it can be argued, the right to >> use terms of service to limit international standards of freedom >> of expression. The more successful and public a service is, the >> fewer restrictions may be allowed. >> >> As I've heard pointed out, Facebook pursues something of a >> 'college morality'. Sex is bad, but violence is ok. The "Abuse >> Standards" bear this out. >> >> Back in February I wrote in my blog: >> >> "Among pictures which are not allowed, we find those showing >> "Any OBVIOUS sexual activity [...] Cartoons/art included".Users >> are also not allowed to "describe sexual activity in writing, >> except when an attempt at humor or insult." >> >> "Digital/cartoon nudity" is not ok, but "Art nudity" is fine. >> People “using the bathroom” are not allowed, neither are >> "[b]latant (obvious) depiction of camel toes and moose >> knuckles". >> >> Facebook also bans "[s]lurs or racial comments of any kind", hate >> symbols and "showing support for organizations and people >> primarily known for violence." But the Guidelines caution that >> "[h]umor overrules hate speech UNLESS slur words are present or >> the humor is not evident." >> >> Since the importance of Facebook as an international forum of >> aggregation and articulation of ideas is growing, the leaked >> document amount to what it believes should be an international >> moral consenus on allowed content. This would be problematic as >> the document is not free of bias and should be vetted more >> carefully against international law on freedom of expression. >> With regard to the generally excepted exceptions from freedom of >> expression, however, most of the standards pass muster. >> >> [...] >> >> Content violative of human rights of others will always exist. >> Social network providers are obliged to protect their users from >> that content but at the same time must ensure that they do not >> infringe freedom of expression unnecessarily. >> >> What Facebook should now do is officially publish the Abuse >> Standards, clarify the moderation process, and start a vigorous >> debate among its users on the international standards of freedom >> of expression." **** >> >> For more, see >> >> http://internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-humor-overrules-hate-speech-and.html >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Matthias >> >> >> >> >> Am 31.05.2012 09:01, schrieb Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro: >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jac sm Kee >> wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> hi all, >>> >>> a glimpse into how FB implements its censorship policies in >>> practice: >>> >>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/low-wage-facebook-contractor-leaks-secret-censorship-list/ >>> >>> >>> In those countries, the people make their laws through the >>>> parliament and one can say that they are legitimately >>>> exercising their sovereign right to determine what is >>>> "acceptable" versus what is "not acceptable" - do we then >>>> dare say that they are wrong. Every country has the sovereign >>>> right and the people therein the sovereign right to determine >>>> for themselves what is "public morality". >>> actually, the state's duties to protect public morality is >>> precisely what provides legitimate cause of governments to >>> intervene and create more laws around censorship of the >>> internet - and this needs a closer and more critical analysis >>> than accepting as is. e.g. in brazil, the problematic azeredo >>> bill was first pushed under economic arguments (preventing >>> financial fraud) - didn't work. but when it was pushed under >>> child protection arguments, it almost went through without a >>> hiccup and galvanised a lot of support (which also resulted in >>> a huge protests - but different story). >>> >>> There are two opposing schools of thought and maybe more, one >>> holds the >> view that what is true in the real world must hold true in the >> virtual world. Paraphrasing that would mean that laws that are >> applicable in real time should be applicable in the internet. The >> other believes that there should be separate laws in real life >> and separate laws for the Internet. Every event/transaction has >> to be analysed according to its own merits so that the danger of >> painting everyone with the same brush is reduced. >> >> >>> pornography is another obvious one, but then what does this >>> constitute and how is it defined can be a problem - as can be >>> seen the FB scenario. not the first time they have come across >>> problems, e.g. they are notorious for blocking photographs of >>> women breastfeeding. compare this against e.g. time magazine's >>> recent controversial cover of a woman breastfeeding, which is >>> okay under US laws - so, lowest common denominator >>> internationally? >> >> This, I would respectfully submit is not the correct test.What >> is culturally acceptable in Miami, Florida, US is not the same as >> in Qatar, Malaysia etc. To dictate to them what their public >> morality won't buy us any ground as far as advocacy for freedom >> of expression is concerned and only serves to alienate without >> educating and giving them an opportunity to learn and grow. See >> the tests that the US Supreme court used in the Miller case. >> >> >>> this would mean anything less than e.g. fully closed face and >>> ankles and wrists would be unacceptable. that doesn't quite >>> make sense either. >>> >>> That was never said. For the record, the discussions have been >>> about >> namely the following:- >> >> 1. Is the right of freedom of expression an absolute right? Is it >> an unfettered right? 2. Does the right of freedom of expression >> come with responsibilities? 3. Who should be responsible when it >> comes to the Internet? 4. Are there exceptions under >> International law? 5. What are those exceptions? 6. Are there >> instances where the exceptions have been abused? 7. How can civil >> society advocate responsibly? >> >> >> >> apc has been doing a research on examining how internet >> regulation and >>> regulation of sexuality goes hand-in-hand, and it's thrown up >>> some interesting points. from e.g. international aid for >>> infrastructure that comes encumbered with policy requirements >>> and setting national agendas on e.g. the issue of child >>> pornography, to the contentious geopolitical negotiations >>> around sexual speech, health, rights and citizenship. more >>> info: http://erotics.apc.org >>> >>> i've also been reading the conversations around EC and >>> democratization of IG on this list with interest. and the thing >>> that bugs me about looking at democratization starting from >>> national democratic processes is that the potential of the >>> internet to facilitate democratic participation and >>> deliberations is precisely because it is currently still >>> somewhat slippery from complete state control, as opposed to >>> e.g. broadcasting media and books and streets. >> >> >> I think that when making a broad assertion that you give >> specific examples so that there can be discussion and debate. >> >>> so i am reluctant to say that states should ahve oversight and >>> negotiate it from there. >>> >> >> There is some misunderstanding. In any sovereign jurisdiction, >> civil society, private sector and the state each have their >> place. The foundation of multistakeholderism stems from the basic >> notion that the governments, private sector and civil society >> have clear functions. What is enhanced cooperation domestically >> within a nation and what does it look like outside the country? >> What should it look like? >> >> although i understand that global governance and oversight is >>> different from national, but when states become the highest >>> hierarchy of authority, then my point of entry for engagement >>> as civ soc would be from that level. it's not something i am >>> optimistic about.. >>> >> >> >> >>> anyway, 2 cents, jac >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What FB is doing will potentially impact the way that >>>> younger generations >>>>> will perceive liberty (including body expression and >>>>> sexual liberty) and morality. And, in my country, FB is >>>>> actually being more conservative than traditional media, >>>>> endangering the progress we made on recent decades when it >>>>> comes to body expression women's rights and sexual rights. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is it facebook that is being conservative? Afterall, they >>>>> are merely trying to comply with the laws of the land. I >>>>> think that if people have an issue, they should take it up >>>>> with their respective Parliaments and have it debated. >>>>> These comments are restricted to the "Freedom of >>>>> Expression" but when it comes to "Privacy" and "misuse" of >>>>> information and data - I have different views. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I do not feel comfortable to place this sort of decision on >>>>> FB's hands, with no chance of democratic debate, with no >>>>> chance to scrutinize these policies they impinge on users. >>>>> >>>>> These are good discussions and Turkey and Thailand and the >>>>> US make >>>> fascinating studies. >>>> >>>>> Best, Marília >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some basic conclusions: a) rights, such as freedom >>>>>>>> of expression, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would one who uses FB think they can express >>>>>>> themselves outside of the FB ToS/AUP? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> are being >>>>>>>> restricted by the same platforms that are praised and >>>>>>>> known for >>>>>>> enabling >>>>>>>> their exercise; b) there is a privatization of >>>>>>>> Internet regulation, >>>>>>> subtle, >>>>>>>> based on contracts (terms of use) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you argue that Internet companies have NO ToS? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> , but yet, dangerous; c) I see no adequate >>>>>>>> forum where we should take this issue to be analized >>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> participatory and >>>>>>>> balanced way in the global arena. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nor should there be IMHO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address >>>>>>> indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get >>>>>>> there." Jon Postel >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio >>>>> >>>>> Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation >>>>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Policy Coordinator Association >>> for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | >>> www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe >>> >> >> >> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 >> 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Univ.-Ass. Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> >> Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen >> Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) F | +43 >> 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | >> internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com >> >> >> -- >> >> Mag. iur. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Teaching and >> Research Fellow >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations >> University of Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | >> +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | >> internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, >> visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile >> and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Policy Coordinator Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyGmlAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmWNYIAJhzUg/ZzigJaWxQTTwzm3LR IJWtCGRCAg8nr2AWvB5nGgTfBUvJY9X1jRVn4J2djzHVvxhpMdnJbMBwcVUPDj22 pgUgwa63pTPZGMH7jDEY56Ugf1l0j33WZ4kFalE1Gm1+Uf1DM9QF8tma5QuQ/04t 3w7dnhBYx7pb6G7b7qb+6wHtpz/+OGAvW5Gf5E58lQszcfhqvTwLogt9fB55V4Ze J2IMltgXGUwU3GLzaHMYJ5ri9dFwT62Ei54WAfJ+J/C/aek/IcQXB34xp9SEYn1B Kc99I+lHOwoqgXnyTEfjM5cA+akftcBZ3j0vKGlfRw4R/QZUKPI5KHzvTDNyoCg= =1Ktc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jun 1 03:26:36 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:26:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FC86EAC.8090403@digsys.bg> On 31.05.12 09:52, Roland Perry wrote: > I refer you to Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" although the > jury is still out in the USA regarding the acceptability of the word > "Nigger" (although I wouldn't use the word myself other than in a > context such as this). This was actually my first "American culture shock", while visiting the US for the first time, and it happened during the riots in 1992, I was warned by my friends to never, ever use this word. Such a huge surprise for me at the time, because this is *the* word to use for anyone with black skin in my country (at that time, at least). Since there weren't that many people with black skin in Bulgaria at the time, the normal reaction of everyone, anyone would be "look, nigger". Those who lived in Bulgaria, the people with black skin had accepted this language and cultural difference and didn't get offended, at all. This is, by the way an good example of how most people are incompatible with Internet. The Internet spans distances and cultures and virtually any barrier. Most of today's laws in about every country make the assumption they (the laws) are operating in an very well isolated environment. Yet, about everyone in that particular country wants and uses the Internet --- where they are exposed to 'laws' that they have no clue about. Another cultural shock with the US was when I traveled shortly after my baby was born. A friend's advice "make sure you have no pictures of your baby naked with you, or you may get arrested in the US". Good friends!!! Of course, anyone in my country would carry few naked pictures of their newborns, after all, those are supposed to be photographed naked and shown to all your friends! :) Interesting times we live in... I hope the war won't be too damaging to humanity. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jun 1 03:41:42 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:41:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC70C0C.2060601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC87236.2000500@digsys.bg> On 31.05.12 09:13, parminder wrote: > > > 1) Facebook, and similar global social utilities, get completely > territorialised, serving each country a version that is specific to > the laws and customs of that country Unfortunately, the process by which this happens is severely flawed and therefore unacceptable. You either provide an unfiltered media, or you are not -- in which case there will be someone else to offer it unfiltered, at least for a while. > 2) We go by a global least denominator for the whole world (which as > you argue is not acceptable) There is no such. The global least denominator is: Shutdown Internet But, it is too late for this now. Everyone, including those "government regulators" want the Internet. Governments want the Internet, because they are elected from time to time. Any political party that insists on shutting down or filtering Internet is not going to be elected in the Government (so yes, politicians too make *commercial* decisions) Currently, those politicians resort to lying. They promise free and unrestricted Internet, yet they go on and sign ACTA... oops. Lost trust. Somebody else will win the next elections. > > 3) we leave things to private regulation, the will of the monopoly > companies almost entirely determined by maximum profit motive There is no such thing, as private and public regulation. Those are political terms. Anything that does not agree with the "powers that be" is labeled "private" and "not in the public interests". Same old story... There is no political system, that can work with the Internet. The only applicable law is the "common sense" law -- that every human being on this planet knows unconditionally. Unfortunately, this means global conflict. Big global conflict. > > In default, to me, our best political option is to seek an appropriate > national-global political system for the Internet, and keep struggling > for better and better avenues for civil society participation, while > warding off possible attempts at using the same avenues for even > greater corporate influence on Internet related policies. > > As for global political systems necessarily producing lowest > denominator outcome, this is not true. Also such an argument can be > used against any political system and thus in its essence is simply an > 'anti-political' argument. However, ad hoc, one-off, arrangements and > agreements among governments are more likely to produce such lowest > denomination like bad results. More open, insitutionalised political > processes generally tend to produce better results, and that is what > is being sought in our call for democratising global IG. > One of the things Internet changed, as communication infrastructure was the removal of the bilateral or multi-lateral agreements between all participating parties. Once you are connected, you can communicate with all others. It is like once a new human is born, it can communicate with the rest of the society. If they develop good behavior, they get more respected. if they develop bad behavior, they get refused. This is how the human society naturally self-regulates. Laws... is the thing that artificially distort this self-regulation in one way or another. Yet, the human society self-regulation remains functional (with or without laws). By the way, if you are inclined to label me as "neo liberal" (or whatever) or as someone against laws, you would be wrong. I won't argue anyway :) Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 1 04:04:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:34:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120601062832.C53DB1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: <4FC87789.5060602@itforchange.net> Norbert, 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. And accordingly there are different set of legitimate concerns and fears of different actors. The principal 'problem' on which the 'enhanced cooperation' (or legitimate global public policy making wrt the Internet) thing is stuck is precisely the role of different actors, issues around multistakeholderism (and if so, what kind), the 'equal footing' issue, technical expertise requirements, nature and legitimacy of representativity etc, which 'problem' admits to different analysis and solutions, generally speaking, on the two mentioned sides of the 'enhanced cooperation' issue. The technical community, for instance, which can be the most vocal group raising the 'UN control of the Internet' alarm, may not have so much of a problem if, say, a UN committee, with proper participative structure, is merely doing the kind of work OECD's Committee on CICP (OECD's Internet policy mechanism) does. There is also so much lesser justification to block any such proposal. This opens the way for some possibility of dialogue and moving forward in this particular direction. Similarly, it easier, at least logically, to argue with developing countries that CIR management and tech standards, even their oversight aspects, are a different ballgame than typical socio-economic policy making. In this area, therefore, one can expect more openness to non-UN, innovative models of oversight whereby we can perhaps include non-gov expertise/ representativity in decision-making processes in a relatively more substantive manner. As we discuss these issues/ problems separately, the nature of relationship between them can be discussed at another, different level. I think, giving separate treatment to different parts of a complex problem, like enhanced cooperation issue clearly is, is also a scientifically sound methodology. parminder On Friday 01 June 2012 11:58 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> I think that the questions you propose are good. Could you just explain a >> little further why you believe we should not separate CIR and non-CIR? I >> think that a neat separation would bring more clarity to the debate. >> > I don't have a very strong view on this, but i think that the > fundamental challenge of setting up a good institutional > framework for Enhanced Cooperation (including appropriate > working processes, appropriate principles to guide these > processes, and an appropriate oversight function of some kind > to ensure that the principles are followed in actual reality > and not perverted by means of powerful actors hypocitically > just paying them lip service while ensuring that something > different happens in reality) is pretty much the same > independently of the type of substantive issues (there's CIR > issues, non-CIR issues, issues with CIR and non-CIR aspects, > and issues where it's hard to decide into what category they > should be classified). > > In my view, the key fundamental challenge is that any effective > Enhanced Cooperation framework will cause the power of some > currently overly powerful US companies, as well as the power > of the US government to act on behalf of the US copyright > industry, to be deminished. The US government as well as a > significant part of the technical community will be vigorously > opposed to anything with this effect, because they will > perceive any proposal to change the status quo as a threat to > what they perceive as "our ability to make things work right". > > My main concern about the proposal of structuring the Enhanced > Cooperation discussion into a CIR and a non-CIR part is that such a > structuring might have effects like > * making it even more difficult than it is already to address > that fundamental challenge, because what needs to be said to > address the fundamental challenge may not necessarily fit well > under either the CIR nor the non-CIR heading, > * dividing the people who are passionate about making Enhanced > Cooperation happen, according to what subject area is where > their main substantive concerns are, instead of allowing us to > work united on establishing a good Enhanced Cooperation > framework. I'd suggest that we should work together at the > present stage and only go our separate ways to work on different > types of substative concerns after the crucial first step of > establishing a good framework for Enhanced Cooperation has > been achieved. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jun 1 04:27:46 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:27:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <20120531222524.45A641F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> <20120531222524.45A641F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FC87D02.1030706@digsys.bg> On 01.06.12 01:25, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > If the people with whom I wish to communicate use Facebook, the > existence of any number of other social network sites is irrelevant. This is so very true. With the clarification, that you can participate in as many other social networks as you wish, if you have sufficient (mental) resources. About the same as participating in many different clubs. > Even if I had the ability to create a social network site of my own > with the same features as Facebook, that would change nothing, since > there will always be only one "social network" site where "everyone" > is. > > By contrast, if I don't like the dress code rules of a club that I > would otherwise wish to join, I can, with a reasonable hope of > success, start a new club with different dress code rules. By the way, I don't see the contrast here. Both your example club and Facebook are clubs. Facebook is just an club. The "trouble" you have with Facebook is that many, lots of them go to that club and you go too, like their dress code or not. As it happens with any club that gets popular enough. About the only power Facebook has comes from the fact that they have managed to attract sufficiently many members to their club. It is like football clubs attracting fans. Do we consider them illegal? Do we consider them monopoly. Or, the most important - do we consider them having too much power with their huge number of fans? There is also nothing to prevent you from starting another social network site. This is in fact, how Facebook was born. You will need of course to go trough the pains of attracting enough members and maintaining the thing. Chances you will be successful. You will have your own club, with the rules as you see fit. Since life is short, most people don't bother. They make compromises. Go to clubs that have so-so acceptable rules and dress codes for their taste. Sometimes they go to a club because of certain members, or because of certain benefits it offers (bait, for the members). Internet is such a wonderful place. It let's people easily implement ideas and concepts they were convinced to think are impossible "in real life". It's the same. Just the cost to implement these things in Internet is lower and thus many more things made reality. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 04:39:45 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:39:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Marilia, I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Jun 1 04:41:51 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:41:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <03FA3A76-D144-4C41-B62B-1353CC2A26FE@uzh.ch> Hi Marilia On May 31, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I am totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. But this is a crossborder issue that involves private forces and public interest. Tell me the place where we can globally tackle this issue, all together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I will be the first to attend and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come about. But first we probably need to fight for such a space to exist. I guess I'm with Roland and others who'd note that the Internet is not the web and the web is not FB, so while FB's TOR are overly paranoid and restrictive, there are other places to post stuff, and it's at least debatable whether this rises to the level of being global Internet governance. But I have different questions. In conversations in Geneva and here (and the IT4C letter did the same), you've cited FB policies as evidence there's an urgent need for enhanced cooperation in the form of a platform under the UN. But why not organize an online campaign---per ACTA SOPA PIPA—of fellow FB users to put pressure on FB directly (and for that matter, use the IGF in parallel to stoke the debate), rather than creating a centralized uber mechanism responsible for this and all else? Why do you think a WG/CIRP/whatever that would be populated inter alia by Geneva reps of the very governments that make FB paranoid in the first place would be more likely to agree that nudity is ok and FB should allow it without fear of government reprisals? There are many CS and other actors who share your concerns about individual issues---FoE IPR privacy surveillance etc---and the meta issue of concentrated power but just have trouble seeing a one-stop shop in the UN as the right solution. Since the case for why it would be really hasn't been made in any detail, isn't there a risk that insisting it's the only option left-minded people may consider (and in some tellings, that any nonbelievers are morally suspect, don't care about developing countries, etc) just limits coalition building? Can we agree that at the Baku pre-event and beyond, it'd be useful to work through the relative merits of different institutional designs? Personally, I've always favored WGs in the IGF & strengthening/connecting advocacy coalitions working in different spaces (although as the APC network of networks effort showed, that's difficult), but there are other options, a new UN body being just one. So let's compare and contrast? 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 04:49:47 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:49:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Congress References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> <"03FA3A76- D144-4C41-B62B-1353CC2A26FE"@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDF3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/20120531/BILLS-112hconres127ih.pdf 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 1 05:11:05 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:11:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC87789.5060602@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:34:25 +0530) 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> Message-ID: <20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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. 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 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". 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, 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. 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 05:35:16 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:35:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: <4FC88CD4.6050505@ciroap.org> On 01/06/12 17:11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > 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 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". 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, 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. Really interesting and audacious. Back in 1997 ISOC formed an Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) that was intended as a counterpart to the IETF and the IRTF, but dealing with public policy issues. It never took off due to lack of involvement by governments and was eventually superseded by WSIS the following year. Actually when I commenced my doctoral studies on Internet governance my intention was also to propose an IETF-like body for public policy issues, though what I eventually proposed bore more less resemblance to the IETF. Others (including Avri) made similar proposals that the IGF should adopt an IETF-like model: see http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf. So whilst I would have opposed this if the CSTD had recommended to form its on working group on EC, since they didn't, I would support us forming one anyway, and inviting governments to participate in it. I foresee that they will ignore the invitation because the group hasn't been formed by the UN, but let's do it anyway and see how much traction the group can get without them. -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2370 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 1 05:37:05 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:37:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> Sorry, I'll just disable the blasted digital signature for good. On 01/06/12 17:11, Norbert Bollow wrote: > 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 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". 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, 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. Really interesting and audacious. Back in 1997 ISOC formed an Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) that was intended as a counterpart to the IETF and the IRTF, but dealing with public policy issues. It never took off due to lack of involvement by governments and was eventually superseded by WSIS the following year. Actually when I commenced my doctoral studies on Internet governance my intention was also to propose an IETF-like body for public policy issues, though what I eventually proposed bore more less resemblance to the IETF. Others (including Avri) made similar proposals that the IGF should adopt an IETF-like model: see http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf. So whilst I would have opposed this if the CSTD had recommended to form its on working group on EC, since they didn't, I would support us forming one anyway, and inviting governments to participate in it. I foresee that they will ignore the invitation because the group hasn't been formed by the UN, but let's do it anyway and see how much traction the group can get without them. -- *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 pouzin at well.com Fri Jun 1 06:48:42 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:48:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:25 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns > > A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international > regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, > Republicans, the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf. > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu > st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 > > - - - > Robert_M._McDowell seems to speak more as a Republican than an FCC Commissioner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._McDowell «Robert M. McDowell was first appointed to a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by U.S. President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2006. When he was reappointed to the Commission on June 2, 2009, Commissioner McDowell became the first Republican to be appointed to an independent agency by President Barack Obama. The U.S. Senate confirmed him unanimously on June 25, 2009.[6] Commissioner McDowell's second term ends June 2014.» Internet takeover by UN or ITU is a were-wolf number recurring about once a year in US politics since 2003. There are more serious issues though. As long as unbridled US monopolies take the lion's share of internet profits, the prospect of taxing them abroad shall acquire more thrust. No wonder that the respected Google evangelist did jump on the bandwagon. Perhaps some haggling should start within WTO. Cheers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 1 07:17:45 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:47:45 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> Hi Wolfgang, The first argument against continued US oversight of the ICANN is political-democratic. I will respond to your specific points in another email. In order to seek democracy, one need not have to give instances of what a dictator did wrong, which could be better in a democracy. Inversely, it also hardly works to quote examples, in defense of dictatorship, of how a dictator did not do something which he could well have for his private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community". And the logic you use about how a body with more democratic representation can cause confusion, stalemates and other such problems can as easily be used against bringing in a democratic parliament instead of a dictator. A few hundred politicians, all with individual agendas, coming from very different backgrounds (often from warring groups and tribes in a new democracy), with little training in the high art of state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse picture even than the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still people, very knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this kind of democracy. In fact, sometimes, only sometimes, the immediate results may actually look worse than the condition before -- See, Egypt for instance, there is acute lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of persecution of minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being imposed etc. Wise and knowledgeable people could have predicted this general picture even before Tahrir square happened. But they went ahead with the revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills of democracy is more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of problems in democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can think of different alternative democratic institutional systems, and also the struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But please dont preach continued lordship of one country over all. parminder On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). > > But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: > > You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" > > I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are > a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and > b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. > > Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. > > What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. > > To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? > > The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. > > A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 1 08:11:08 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:41:08 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> On Friday 01 June 2012 04:47 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > The first argument against continued US oversight of the ICANN is > political-democratic. I will respond to your specific points in > another email. Now turning to some specific points. You ask, what is our main problem with US oversight of ICANN. Well, the biggest one is, ICANN is a US nonprofit, subject to all laws of the US, big and small. In fact even if it wanted to, the executive branch of the government may not be able to protect ICANN from being made subject to all these US laws. Do you, or do you not, agree with this proposition? And as the Internet becomes the platform and infrastructure of such a big part of our global social, economic, cultural and political systems and structures, this situation is both completely untenable and unacceptable. Anybody believing in democracy would not want to be subject to the laws in making of which s/he does not participate. At any time ICANN can be made to act as per US laws and US interest. You would have heard of the Internet Kill Switch legislation which at present seems to be shelved. It would have given US President executive control -- if one is to believe that he does not have it already - over all critical infrastructure of the Internet. One has no reason to believe that this excluded the ICANN and the authoritative root zone server. Well, before you start arguing that these security related sovereign fears are misplaced, you may want to explain that why, in that case, does US want to control the position of the chief security officer of the ICANN (or of the IANA contractee)? On what basis do you advocate that other countries simply ignore all such deeply serious matters and concerns? Can you guarantee that the next Afghanistan or Iraq invasion will not happen along with tampering of the concerned country domain spaces? Since, the US seems to be the only country that launches such unilateral aggressions, it is in fact the one country least qualified -- and not the most qualified, as you seem to argue - to sit over the control of the Internet's root. Since you seem to be comfortable with the status quo, at the same time as you ignore the above issues, you exaggerate the problems with the alternatives. First of all, you have not engaged with a, non-typical-UN, international body's oversight possibility that I proposed, with regional representation, rotated among countries,and with the member being chosen through a broader process within the country though having some alignment with the concerned government as well. Also, as proposed by me, this new body will have only very limited functions, all of them clearly defined by due internationally legal process (unlike it is with the US at present). It would not require consensus to approve every root server entry, but perhaps a majority or some such arrangement. I can easily see the system working, at least as well as the present one. Even the CIRP did not set out the precise manner in which oversight functions may be exercised, because it was a general conversation-starter proposal. In any case, nowhere it is proposed that every root server entry will require consensus. You are just making it up to argue your case. I am sure if the Indian government was to get into the specifics, it is mature and pragmatic enough to ensure a system that works. And it is my feeling that they will also consider an outside-the-UN oversight system of the kind I have proposed. Therefore your main argument against internationalizing oversight of CIRs just does not hold. About the AoC, you know that US can rescind it any moment. In any case, why not enter a similar AoC with the UN? Will you agree? If not, can you please tell me the reason? The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) Parminder PS: BTW, as I have said before, without intending to offend anyone, I again beg to state that I personally do not think ICANN does very important work, at any rate not the most important work in global IG. My interest is rather more on the social, economic, cultural policies side. > > In order to seek democracy, one need not have to give instances of > what a dictator did wrong, which could be better in a democracy. > Inversely, it also hardly works to quote examples, in defense of > dictatorship, of how a dictator did not do something which he could > well have for his private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every > dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for > his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you > hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call > as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community". > > And the logic you use about how a body with more democratic > representation can cause confusion, stalemates and other such problems > can as easily be used against bringing in a democratic parliament > instead of a dictator. A few hundred politicians, all with individual > agendas, coming from very different backgrounds (often from warring > groups and tribes in a new democracy), with little training in the > high art of state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse > picture even than the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still > people, very knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this > kind of democracy. > > In fact, sometimes, only sometimes, the immediate results may actually > look worse than the condition before -- See, Egypt for instance, there > is acute lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of > persecution of minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being > imposed etc. Wise and knowledgeable people could have predicted this > general picture even before Tahrir square happened. But they went > ahead with the revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills > of democracy is more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of > problems in democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can > think of different alternative democratic institutional systems, and > also the struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But > please dont preach continued lordship of one country over all. > > parminder > > > > On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi Marilia, >> >> I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). >> >> But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: >> >> You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" >> >> I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are >> a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and >> b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. >> >> Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. >> >> What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. >> >> To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? >> >> The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. >> >> A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? >> >> 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 avri at acm.org Fri Jun 1 08:47:28 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:47:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I think Parminder makes good points on why ICANN must become independent of the US government. I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. >> The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) Just to be clear I don't trust either. I am all in favor of the US efforts to stop anything that even hints at a UN takeover of any element of control, be it over IPv4/6, TLDs, ASNs or IETF numbers. But I also stand against continued US control over these things. I still maintain the point I made in WGIG with various others, we do not need any form of national or international governmental oversight for ICANN. What we need is well established multistakeholder oversight (I think there were even several proposals at the time of WSIS and since as to how this could be established). The main operational problem with making a transition to a structure other than a US corporate structure is how maintain its contractual agreements until new form of regulatory control over Registries and Registrars can be established. Currently those serving the GTLD market are 'regulated' via contract and these are specifically California based contracts. One of the advantages of moving to a form of regulation that is not California contract based is that it will allow for regulation to be extended over the ccTLDs who rightly bristle at the notion of being regulated by a US corporation and thus are free to do whatever they please. Unfortunately , however, I don't think anyone yet has made a coherent proposal for how that transition, from regulation via contract to international multistakeholder regulation could be made. avri On 1 Jun 2012, at 08:11, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 01 June 2012 04:47 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> The first argument against continued US oversight of the ICANN is political-democratic. I will respond to your specific points in another email. > Now turning to some specific points. > You ask, what is our main problem with US oversight of ICANN. Well, the biggest one is, ICANN is a US nonprofit, subject to all laws of the US, big and small. In fact even if it wanted to, the executive branch of the government may not be able to protect ICANN from being made subject to all these US laws. Do you, or do you not, agree with this proposition? And as the Internet becomes the platform and infrastructure of such a big part of our global social, economic, cultural and political systems and structures, this situation is both completely untenable and unacceptable. > Anybody believing in democracy would not want to be subject to the laws in making of which s/he does not participate. At any time ICANN can be made to act as per US laws and US interest. You would have heard of the Internet Kill Switch legislation which at present seems to be shelved. It would have given US President executive control – if one is to believe that he does not have it already - over all critical infrastructure of the Internet. One has no reason to believe that this excluded the ICANN and the authoritative root zone server. Well, before you start arguing that these security related sovereign fears are misplaced, you may want to explain that why, in that case, does US want to control the position of the chief security officer of the ICANN (or of the IANA contractee)? On what basis do you advocate that other countries simply ignore all such deeply serious matters and concerns? Can you guarantee that the next Afghanistan or Iraq invasion will not happen along with tampering of the concerned country domain spaces? Since, the US seems to be the only country that launches such unilateral aggressions, it is in fact the one country least qualified – and not the most qualified, as you seem to argue - to sit over the control of the Internet's root. > Since you seem to be comfortable with the status quo, at the same time as you ignore the above issues, you exaggerate the problems with the alternatives. First of all, you have not engaged with a, non-typical-UN, international body's oversight possibility that I proposed, with regional representation, rotated among countries,and with the member being chosen through a broader process within the country though having some alignment with the concerned government as well. Also, as proposed by me, this new body will have only very limited functions, all of them clearly defined by due internationally legal process (unlike it is with the US at present). It would not require consensus to approve every root server entry, but perhaps a majority or some such arrangement. I can easily see the system working, at least as well as the present one. > Even the CIRP did not set out the precise manner in which oversight functions may be exercised, because it was a general conversation-starter proposal. In any case, nowhere it is proposed that every root server entry will require consensus. You are just making it up to argue your case. I am sure if the Indian government was to get into the specifics, it is mature and pragmatic enough to ensure a system that works. And it is my feeling that they will also consider an outside-the-UN oversight system of the kind I have proposed. Therefore your main argument against internationalizing oversight of CIRs just does not hold. > About the AoC, you know that US can rescind it any moment. In any case, why not enter a similar AoC with the UN? Will you agree? If not, can you please tell me the reason? > The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) > Parminder > PS: BTW, as I have said before, without intending to offend anyone, I again beg to state that I personally do not think ICANN does very important work, at any rate not the most important work in global IG. My interest is rather more on the social, economic, cultural policies side. > > >> >> In order to seek democracy, one need not have to give instances of what a dictator did wrong, which could be better in a democracy. Inversely, it also hardly works to quote examples, in defense of dictatorship, of how a dictator did not do something which he could well have for his private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community". >> And the logic you use about how a body with more democratic representation can cause confusion, stalemates and other such problems can as easily be used against bringing in a democratic parliament instead of a dictator. A few hundred politicians, all with individual agendas, coming from very different backgrounds (often from warring groups and tribes in a new democracy), with little training in the high art of state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse picture even than the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still people, very knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this kind of democracy. >> In fact, sometimes, only sometimes, the immediate results may actually look worse than the condition before – See, Egypt for instance, there is acute lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of persecution of minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being imposed etc. Wise and knowledgeable people could have predicted this general picture even before Tahrir square happened. But they went ahead with the revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills of democracy is more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of problems in democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can think of different alternative democratic institutional systems, and also the struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But please dont preach continued lordship of one country over all. >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). >>> >>> But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: >>> >>> You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" >>> >>> I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are >>> a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and >>> b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. >>> >>> Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. >>> >>> What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. >>> >>> To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? >>> >>> The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. >>> >>> A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 10:48:47 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:48:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google & new gTLDs References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2012/05/expanding-internet-domain-space.html#!/2012/05/expanding-internet-domain-space.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 tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Jun 1 10:51:53 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:51:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <010901cd4006$158b8920$40a29b60$@planet.tn> +++1 ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d’Ingénieurs Téléphone : + 216 70 825 231 Tél Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Télécopie  : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : vendredi 1 juin 2012 13:47 À : IGC Objet : Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns Hi, I think Parminder makes good points on why ICANN must become independent of the US government. I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. >> The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more >> than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the >> South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) Just to be clear I don't trust either. I am all in favor of the US efforts to stop anything that even hints at a UN takeover of any element of control, be it over IPv4/6, TLDs, ASNs or IETF numbers. But I also stand against continued US control over these things. I still maintain the point I made in WGIG with various others, we do not need any form of national or international governmental oversight for ICANN. What we need is well established multistakeholder oversight (I think there were even several proposals at the time of WSIS and since as to how this could be established). The main operational problem with making a transition to a structure other than a US corporate structure is how maintain its contractual agreements until new form of regulatory control over Registries and Registrars can be established. Currently those serving the GTLD market are 'regulated' via contract and these are specifically California based contracts. One of the advantages of moving to a form of regulation that is not California contract based is that it will allow for regulation to be extended over the ccTLDs who rightly bristle at the notion of being regulated by a US corporation and thus are free to do whatever they please. Unfortunately , however, I don't think anyone yet has made a coherent proposal for how that transition, from regulation via contract to international multistakeholder regulation could be made. avri On 1 Jun 2012, at 08:11, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 01 June 2012 04:47 PM, parminder wrote: >> Hi Wolfgang, >> >> The first argument against continued US oversight of the ICANN is political-democratic. I will respond to your specific points in another email. > Now turning to some specific points. > You ask, what is our main problem with US oversight of ICANN. Well, the biggest one is, ICANN is a US nonprofit, subject to all laws of the US, big and small. In fact even if it wanted to, the executive branch of the government may not be able to protect ICANN from being made subject to all these US laws. Do you, or do you not, agree with this proposition? And as the Internet becomes the platform and infrastructure of such a big part of our global social, economic, cultural and political systems and structures, this situation is both completely untenable and unacceptable. > Anybody believing in democracy would not want to be subject to the laws in making of which s/he does not participate. At any time ICANN can be made to act as per US laws and US interest. You would have heard of the Internet Kill Switch legislation which at present seems to be shelved. It would have given US President executive control – if one is to believe that he does not have it already - over all critical infrastructure of the Internet. One has no reason to believe that this excluded the ICANN and the authoritative root zone server. Well, before you start arguing that these security related sovereign fears are misplaced, you may want to explain that why, in that case, does US want to control the position of the chief security officer of the ICANN (or of the IANA contractee)? On what basis do you advocate that other countries simply ignore all such deeply serious matters and concerns? Can you guarantee that the next Afghanistan or Iraq invasion will not happen along with tampering of the concerned country domain spaces? Since, the US seems to be the only country that launches such unilateral aggressions, it is in fact the one country least qualified – and not the most qualified, as you seem to argue - to sit over the control of the Internet's root. > Since you seem to be comfortable with the status quo, at the same time as you ignore the above issues, you exaggerate the problems with the alternatives. First of all, you have not engaged with a, non-typical-UN, international body's oversight possibility that I proposed, with regional representation, rotated among countries,and with the member being chosen through a broader process within the country though having some alignment with the concerned government as well. Also, as proposed by me, this new body will have only very limited functions, all of them clearly defined by due internationally legal process (unlike it is with the US at present). It would not require consensus to approve every root server entry, but perhaps a majority or some such arrangement. I can easily see the system working, at least as well as the present one. > Even the CIRP did not set out the precise manner in which oversight functions may be exercised, because it was a general conversation-starter proposal. In any case, nowhere it is proposed that every root server entry will require consensus. You are just making it up to argue your case. I am sure if the Indian government was to get into the specifics, it is mature and pragmatic enough to ensure a system that works. And it is my feeling that they will also consider an outside-the-UN oversight system of the kind I have proposed. Therefore your main argument against internationalizing oversight of CIRs just does not hold. > About the AoC, you know that US can rescind it any moment. In any case, why not enter a similar AoC with the UN? Will you agree? If not, can you please tell me the reason? > The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more > than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the > South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) Parminder > PS: BTW, as I have said before, without intending to offend anyone, I again beg to state that I personally do not think ICANN does very important work, at any rate not the most important work in global IG. My interest is rather more on the social, economic, cultural policies side. > > >> >> In order to seek democracy, one need not have to give instances of what a dictator did wrong, which could be better in a democracy. Inversely, it also hardly works to quote examples, in defense of dictatorship, of how a dictator did not do something which he could well have for his private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community". >> And the logic you use about how a body with more democratic representation can cause confusion, stalemates and other such problems can as easily be used against bringing in a democratic parliament instead of a dictator. A few hundred politicians, all with individual agendas, coming from very different backgrounds (often from warring groups and tribes in a new democracy), with little training in the high art of state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse picture even than the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still people, very knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this kind of democracy. >> In fact, sometimes, only sometimes, the immediate results may actually look worse than the condition before – See, Egypt for instance, there is acute lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of persecution of minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being imposed etc. Wise and knowledgeable people could have predicted this general picture even before Tahrir square happened. But they went ahead with the revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills of democracy is more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of problems in democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can think of different alternative democratic institutional systems, and also the struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But please dont preach continued lordship of one country over all. >> parminder >> >> >> On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). >>> >>> But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: >>> >>> You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" >>> >>> I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your >>> opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has >>> ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. >>> >>> Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. >>> >>> What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. >>> >>> To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? >>> >>> The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. >>> >>> A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? >>> >>> 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 ----- Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 1 11:02:23 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:02:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google & new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0C0C6C99-DA99-452C-9512-E11E84820DD9@acm.org> Hi, In US terms that makes them Job Creators. 50 new gTLDS means lots of jobs. Where do i apply? On the 'serious' side. is lol - laugh out load or lots of love or ... Is it a community of laugher or lovers? And I can't wait to see the comment and objection material on .docs One thing pleases me. Once Vint told me, while at a project meeting dinner for some research I was doing and he was advising, that he never would support new ICANN gTLDs. I am so glad that he came around on that topic. 50 of them - for those of us who have long advocated 'let a thousand flower bloom,' the current set of supposed applications doubles the fondest dream. June 13 we can see all the newly applied for names. I bet there are going to be lots of interesting stories. So is the IGC going to gear itself up to comment, and maybe even object to any of the new names if the caucus is sufficiently outraged? avri On 1 Jun 2012, at 10:48, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > > http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2012/05/expanding-internet-domain-space.html#!/2012/05/expanding-internet-domain-space.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Jun 1 11:06:02 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:06:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stuxnet, Iran & US References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE09@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Jun 1 11:07:47 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:07:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 11:45:56 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:45:56 +0000 Subject: FW: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I'm re-sending this because Parminder has ignored it. Really interested in rational dialogue on this topic. ============== Some responses to Parminder's views on CIR oversight It is important to do so, if we have to legitimately argue for safe-guarding existing distributed system of CIR management and technical standards setting. [MM] Let me begin by pointing out that neither you nor your group has ever attended an ICANN meeting, nor have you sought membership or participation in the civil society representational organs of ICANN, despite many invitations and despite the many battles ICANN civil society has needed help to fight. Thus, it is surprising to see you eager to redefine the whole structure suddenly. One wonder whose agenda it is, as it is certainly not civil society's. Also, some awareness of the behavior of the Governmental Advisory Committee within ICANN might be sufficient to convince those with a reality-focused, objective perspective that the types of "oversight" you are calling for can be troublesome, to put it mildly. I'd encourage you to make better use of the many resources - experience, expertise, and networks - that already exist among ICANN-focused civil society, before developing yet another manifesto. The other option is that developing countries lean towards the ITU, which can shift the terrain toward development of a new top-down, centralised and bureaucratic CIR management/ tech standards model. [MM] Many developing countries have "leaned toward the ITU" for years. It is unlikely to affect anything. If the case for your proposed changes is fear of this alternative, it is a very weak case. (1) Shifting oversight of CIRs from US gov to an international body [MM] It should not be "international" it should be "non-national." To be "international" is to be an intergovernmental organization, which means _not acceptable to Internet freedom advocates_. A smaller club of governments (which has been proposed by European Commission at one time) could be even worse. Oddly, you seem to be completely unaware of the critiques of the whole notion of "oversight," and its sister concept of "public policy" that have been developed in the wake of WSIS. The path toward accountability and legitimate process in CIRs is _not_ going to come from concepts of an additional (governmental or MS) committee providing "oversight" on behalf of "public policy" or "public interest" concerns. On the contrary, as we have learned from the end game of the new gTLD process, the concept of oversight inevitably devolves into a politicized battle among special interests to undo, or re-do, policies emerging from the bottom up process if they don't like the outcome. "Oversight" means arbitrary, politicized, unpredictable and hence unjust and inefficient process. "Oversight" means imposing another unaccountable board on top of the existing ICANN board, when the problem is that the existing one is not accountable enough. Replacing US oversight with oversight by multiple governments compounds the problem we have, it doesn't fix it. What is needed are clear rules - rules designed both to restrain and limit ICANN, and to restrain and limit the external forces, including especially governments, who might interfere with ICANN and its processes. IGP made a pretty good start at defining the principles underlying such rules in its filings on the ICANN "transition" back in 2009. http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf (See section "Revising the model") In those comments, you may find a great deal of common ground - we recognize the need for legally binding forms of accountability and that this may need to involve coordinated action among states to pass a treaty. The big difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" body with the arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and impose it on ICANN processes and communities, whereas our proposals are designed to prevent just that. We want the involved community to make policy, within very narrowly defined boundaries, and we want rules we need from governments, and liberal, freedom-enhancing rules - not a blank check to second-guess or re-do or control and regulate people's actions via the Internet. 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 11:54:35 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:54:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> + 1 re Bill's suggestion. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… 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 iza at anr.org Fri Jun 1 12:01:39 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:01:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Ten years ago, almost, I had a conversation in Beijing, with Chinese gov official in charge of ICANN and IG. He said: we don't like the US government to have control over ICANN. I said: I agree with you, as a member of civil society, I don't like that. He said: We like to move the control to UN based inter-governmental body. I said: I don't agree. We don't like government control, any government, that's where we don't agree. It should be multi-stakeholder, users, or civil society should be engaged with governments and private sector, as far as the management of domain name and IP addresses are concerned. Yes, based outside US legal system, international body, host country agreement, with multi-stakeholder composition in decision making. Too abstract? Yes, principles are always abstract. izumi 2012/6/2 William Drake : > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have > a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. > > > Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva.   But on the off chance > that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more > incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the > US?  There's a few international organizations there that have these > already… > > 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Jun 1 12:07:39 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:07:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Stuxnet, Iran & US In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE09@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE09@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Good article for non specialists on the stux worm that stalled Iran nuclear plant. - - - - On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > FYI > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all > > 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 toml at communisphere.com Fri Jun 1 13:08:04 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:08:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> Jeremy and Norbert, With ICANN's initial new TLD process having recently closed, and with hearsay indicating that several cities have applied for TLDs, perhaps the Enhanced Cooperation framework might be piloted on city TLDs. Then, with success, it might be broadened. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 6/1/2012 5:37 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Sorry, I'll just disable the blasted digital signature for good. > > On 01/06/12 17:11, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> 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 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". 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, 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. > > Really interesting and audacious. Back in 1997 ISOC formed an > Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF) that was intended as a counterpart > to the IETF and the IRTF, but dealing with public policy issues. It > never took off due to lack of involvement by governments and was > eventually superseded by WSIS the following year. Actually when I > commenced my doctoral studies on Internet governance my intention was > also to propose an IETF-like body for public policy issues, though > what I eventually proposed bore more less resemblance to the IETF. > Others (including Avri) made similar proposals that the IGF should > adopt an IETF-like model: see > http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf. > > So whilst I would have opposed this if the CSTD had recommended to > form its on working group on EC, since they didn't, I would support us > forming one anyway, and inviting governments to participate in it. I > foresee that they will ignore the invitation because the group hasn't > been formed by the UN, but let's do it anyway and see how much > traction the group can get without them. > > -- > > *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 Fri Jun 1 14:54:00 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:54:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop pretending that it doesn't have members). And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already... 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jun 1 15:05:55 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:05:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 In order to have a "host country" agreement, would require - if i'm not mistaken - the same type of legal status the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has. IOC isn't a terribly open and transparent organization. We need more, not less transparency, openness and accountability at ICANN - not less. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-06-01, at 2:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? > > My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop pretending that it doesn't have members). > > And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? > > This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. > --MM > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns > > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. > > Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 15:25:22 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:25:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <054B50AA-0E1D-4E3E-B96C-B66F2766C07D@intlmgt.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <054B50AA-0E1D-4E3E-B96C-B66F2766C07D@intlmgt.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F44F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> That's very useful, John. Thanks. It confirms my hunch, which is that the basic purpose of a host country agreement is to protect the IO and its staff from application of national law. And you add the important point that in order to protect the people from abuse by the IO, there needs to be an international treaty agreement specifying the rights and limitations of the IO in question. With respect to standing in California courts, I believe (but IANACLB** and thus am not sure) that membership rights could be asserted by anyone who was a member of the organization in question, regardless of whether they were a US citizen. ** IANACLB = I am not a California lawyer, baby. (But I do have a tan like one - It's been sunny here) > -----Original Message----- > From: John Mathiason [mailto:jrm at intlmgt.com] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:06 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, > U.S. warns > > Milton, > > A host country agreement for an international organization covered by the > Convention on Privileges and Immunities of international officials is designed > to ensure that the provisions of that convention are applied (and it only > applies use immunity to international officials), as well as other agreements > that are included (e.g. how national taxes are assessed). These are now > fairly standard and are designed to protect the international organization > from undue influence (or interference) from the country in which the > organization is located. If ICANN were an international organization, it would > be more independent than it now is (and would not be subject to US > antitrust law). So far, no one seems to have tried to sue ICANN in California > courts, and I wonder if any non-US people would have standing to do so > (someone with a US legal background should help here). Of course, > international organizations cannot be sued in national courts. > > The rights and benefits for Netizens would have to be set out in whatever > international agreement was adopted to make ICANN an international > organization. Once set out, ICANN would be required to ensure these rights. > > Hope this is a useful addition to the discussion. > > Best, > > John > > John Mathiason > Adjunct Professor > Cornell Institute for Public Affairs > Cornell University > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:54, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" > accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? > > > > My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such > agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of > legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For > example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject > to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop > pretending that it doesn't have members). > > > > And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too > remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me > how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager > in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? > > > > This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, > but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard > here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. > > --MM > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake > [william.drake at uzh.ch] > > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, > U.S. warns > > > > > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a > host country agreement with an appropriate host country. > > > > Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off > chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something > more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, > in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these > already... > > > > 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 > > > > John Mathiason > Adjunct Professor > Cornell Institute for Public Affairs > Cornell University -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 1 15:26:47 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:26:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB3A2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> HI, My 5 cents: Because ICANN is now subject to California law, and hence operates in conformance with its legal requirements; it is relatively straightforward to include in a future hypothetical host country agreement cross-reference to particular legal standards that must be followed by the organization, and methods of recourse for aggrieved parties. I believe. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. And, if we are now building a host country agreement from scratch, we might for example insert European data protection standards into that agreement. Of course, the whole point of the exercise would be to further augment the organization's openness, transparency, and accessibility. Just because the International Olympic Committee is closest in business model to FIFA in terms of non-transparency and raining favors on anointed insiders, doesn't mean all international organizations must. As far as I know, the International Red Cross, for example, operating in most nations, manages to be open and accessible to average citizens while also going toe to toe with governments when they need to. The point is, if the solution is agreed to be internationalization, then - internationalize the thing, but not in a way that shuts people, or for that matter, governments or businesses, out. And yes the devil is in the details which will need to be laboriously worked out which will take years....presuming there is even a willingness to consider. Perfect topic for IGF workshops for x years ; ). Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Robert Guerra [rguerra at privaterra.org] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:05 PM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns +1 In order to have a "host country" agreement, would require - if i'm not mistaken - the same type of legal status the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has. IOC isn't a terribly open and transparent organization. We need more, not less transparency, openness and accountability at ICANN - not less. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-06-01, at 2:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop pretending that it doesn't have members). And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… 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 Fri Jun 1 15:58:11 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:58:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> Message-ID: In message <4FC8F6F4.2030506 at communisphere.com>, at 13:08:04 on Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Thomas Lowenhaupt writes >With ICANN's initial new TLD process having recently closed, and with >hearsay indicating that several cities have applied for TLDs, perhaps >the Enhanced Cooperation framework might be piloted on city TLDs. Then, >with success, it might be broadened. I'm not sure why we can't use the example of various ccTLDs which have had very successful multi-stakeholder participation and policy making for many years. Why wait till 2014 for .berlin to be a shining example, when we already have .uk? (and I'm sure many others of that ilk) -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Jun 1 16:15:19 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:15:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB3A2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB3A2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <57104994-4A95-44C5-BBFE-95E1844CEC3E@ella.com> Hi, The host country agreement arrangement means: 1, you design the by-laws, charter, oversight and appeal mechanisms to include the transparency and protections that are needed. You don't rely on the happenstance of California and US rules, but pick the multistakeholder participatory democratic form that is most appropriate for the organization. 2. you then make an agreement with a country to domicile that within a specific country and agree to follow specific laws, such as health and wellbeing of employees, and other local ordinance etc as are reasonable for an institution in that country. Milton: it is not that the law is too parochial for people in Zimbabwe, it is being subject to US law on Zimbabwe is not acceptable to people from Zimbabwe who happen to be dealing with an international common public resource. Robert: IOC is not the only exemplar there are many. And they are required to be as transparent as their charter, bylaws and other institutional rules make them. Lee: I think that these can either be treaty based like the IFRC or non treaty based. Of course with my political persuasion I am recommending a non treaty based institution. But it could probably work either way - in the best of all possible worlds (my view of course, and not something I am hopeful of seeing in my lifetime) it would be possible for the governments to agree on an arrangement that made themselves peers in a well formed multistakeholder model. avri On 1 Jun 2012, at 15:26, Lee W McKnight wrote: > HI, > > My 5 cents: > > Because ICANN is now subject to California law, and hence operates in conformance with its legal requirements; it is relatively straightforward to include in a future hypothetical host country agreement cross-reference to particular legal standards that must be followed by the organization, and methods of recourse for aggrieved parties. I believe. I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. > > And, if we are now building a host country agreement from scratch, we might for example insert European data protection standards into that agreement. > > Of course, the whole point of the exercise would be to further augment the organization's openness, transparency, and accessibility. Just because the International Olympic Committee is closest in business model to FIFA in terms of non-transparency and raining favors on anointed insiders, doesn't mean all international organizations must. > > As far as I know, the International Red Cross, for example, operating in most nations, manages to be open and accessible to average citizens while also going toe to toe with governments when they need to. > > The point is, if the solution is agreed to be internationalization, then - internationalize the thing, but not in a way that shuts people, or for that matter, governments or businesses, out. And yes the devil is in the details which will need to be laboriously worked out which will take years....presuming there is even a willingness to consider. Perfect topic for IGF workshops for x years ; ). > > Lee > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Robert Guerra [rguerra at privaterra.org] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:05 PM > To: Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns > > +1 > > In order to have a "host country" agreement, would require - if i'm not mistaken - the same type of legal status the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has. IOC isn't a terribly open and transparent organization. > > We need more, not less transparency, openness and accountability at ICANN - not less. > > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-06-01, at 2:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? >> >> My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop pretending that it doesn't have members). >> >> And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? >> >> This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. >> --MM >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns >> >> >> On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. >> >> Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 17:28:54 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:28:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Fri, 1 Jun 2012 20:58:11 +0100) References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <20120601212854.775AE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> With ICANN's initial new TLD process having recently closed, and with >> hearsay indicating that several cities have applied for TLDs, perhaps >> the Enhanced Cooperation framework might be piloted on city TLDs. Then, >> with success, it might be broadened. That's a very interesting idea!!! I'm very much in favor of pursuing it! Roland Perry replied: > I'm not sure why we can't use the example of various ccTLDs which have > had very successful multi-stakeholder participation and policy making > for many years. Why wait till 2014 for .berlin to be a shining example, > when we already have .uk? Well, as I understand it at least the main point of introducing city TLDs is to support cities with reinventing themselves to some extent as entities with visible existence not only in the physical realm but also online. This reinventing process implies engaging a much wider variety of people than who would participate in ccTLD governance processes which as far as I know are very much focused on the technical and administrative dimensions, so I think that the kind of city TLD governance that Tom has in mind [1] could very well be a good model and testbed for that audacious "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" idea about which I'm so excited. [1] from Tom's statement at the Nairobi IGF: "Entities that traditionally sell domain names as their business are leading cities into the traditional "the-more-names-sold-the-better" business model. We suggest that a more appropriate model for cities might be the level of improvement in children's education, in residents efficiently provided health care, with the increased number of local communication channels, on how well the digital divide has been reduced, etc. These are the measurements that count for cities, not the number of domain names sold." Source: http://idgovmap.org/Lowenhaupt2011 Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 18:13:20 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:13:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Stuxnet Uncovered Message-ID: <047F733B6F6549CAB9201E14776DAE46@UserVAIO> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyb erattacks-against-iran.html?hp &pagewanted=print June 1, 2012 Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON - From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran 's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks - begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games - even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet . At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm's "escape," Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America's most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran's nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised. "Should we shut this thing down?" Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president's national security team who were in the room. Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium. This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran's progress toward developing the ability to build nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran's enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment. Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue. Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran's Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared "to fight our enemies" in "cyberspace and Internet warfare." But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back. The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication. It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country's infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible. A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack. Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks. "We discussed the irony, more than once," one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a "grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering." Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice. If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region. A Bush Initiative The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America's European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation's nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor - whose fuel comes from Russia - to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so. Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results. For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran's systems - even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up - but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America's nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before. The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant's industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet - called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges. The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail. Eventually the beacon would have to "phone home" - literally send a message back to the headquarters of the National Security Agency that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to "throw a little sand in the gears" and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort. Breakthrough, Aided by Israel It took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground. Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within. The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel's Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.'s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program. Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called "the bug." But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran's P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed "destructive testing," essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department's national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot. Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush's term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran's underground enrichment plant. "Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers," Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. "This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction," rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data. "Somebody crossed the Rubicon," he said. Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others - both spies and unwitting accomplices - with physical access to the plant. "That was our holy grail," one of the architects of the plan said. "It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn't think much about the thumb drive in their hand." In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code. The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. "The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence," one of the architects of the early attack said. The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. "This may have been the most brilliant part of the code," one American official said. Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw. "The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened," the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole "stands" that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. "They overreacted," one official said. "We soon discovered they fired people." Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz - which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits - showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well. But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush's advice. The Stuxnet Surprise Mr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America's defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room. What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of cyberwar . The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the "horse blanket," a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran's nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks - certainly after a major attack - he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously. "From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program - the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision," a senior administration official said. "And it's safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule." But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games - General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. - to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer's computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users. "We think there was a modification done by the Israelis," one of the briefers told the president, "and we don't know if we were part of that activity." Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. "It's got to be the Israelis," he said. "They went too far." In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error. The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself "in the wild," where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose. "I don't think we have enough information," Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran's oil revenues. Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on. A Weapon's Uncertain Future American cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, "has been overwhelmingly on one country." There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. "We've considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with," one former intelligence official said. Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using - and particularly to overusing - the weapon. In fact, no country's infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. This article is adapted from "Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power," to be published by Crown on Tuesday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 18:23:52 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 01:23:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <03FA3A76-D144-4C41-B62B-1353CC2A26FE@uzh.ch> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <4FC6FE88.3030809@apcwomen.org> <4FC721EE.5020209@uni-graz.at> <03FA3A76-D144-4C41-B62B-1353CC2A26FE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi, all Today Facebook blocked accounts of nearly 10 Ukrainian independent journalists. But, after active campaign in social media and addresses to Facebook CEO, these accounts were unblocked. May be it is time to think about ombudsmen for social media - as a mediator between users and CEO? Best regards, Oksana 2012/6/1 William Drake : > Hi Marilia > > > On May 31, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I am totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. But > this is a crossborder issue that involves private forces and public > interest. Tell me the place where we can globally tackle this issue, all > together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I will be the first to attend > and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come about. But first we > probably need to fight for such a space to exist. > > > I guess I'm with Roland and others who'd note that the Internet is not the > web and the web is not FB, so while FB's TOR are overly paranoid and > restrictive, there are other places to post stuff, and it's at least > debatable whether this rises to the level of being global Internet > governance.  But I have different questions.  In conversations in Geneva and > here (and the IT4C letter did the same), you've cited FB policies as > evidence there's an urgent need for enhanced cooperation in the form of > a platform under the UN.   But why not organize an online campaign---per > ACTA SOPA PIPA—of fellow FB users to put pressure on FB directly (and for > that matter, use the IGF in parallel to stoke the debate), rather than > creating a centralized uber mechanism responsible for this and all else? >  Why do you think a WG/CIRP/whatever that would be populated inter alia by > Geneva reps of the very governments that make FB paranoid in the first place > would be more likely to agree that nudity is ok and FB should allow it > without fear of government reprisals? > > There are many CS and other actors who share your concerns about individual > issues---FoE IPR privacy surveillance etc---and the meta issue of > concentrated power but just have trouble seeing a one-stop shop in the UN as > the right solution.  Since the case for why it would be really hasn't been > made in any detail, isn't there a risk that insisting it's the only option > left-minded people may consider (and in some tellings, that any nonbelievers > are morally suspect, don't care about developing countries, etc) just limits > coalition building?  Can we agree that at the Baku pre-event and beyond, > it'd be useful to work through the relative merits of different > institutional designs?  Personally, I've always favored WGs in the IGF & > strengthening/connecting advocacy coalitions working in different spaces > (although as the APC network of networks effort showed, that's difficult), > but there are other options, a new UN body being just one.   So let's > compare and contrast? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Fri Jun 1 18:43:51 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: I very much agree with Avri's idea expressed here. That gives me a question, as a co-coordinator. Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, statement, in time? Do we have consensus, or any person to lead that? If we do not start early enough, I guess, we may be consumed by IGF in Baku, etc, and then by the time we notice this, it could be too late, I am afraid. izumi 2012/6/1 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: > > - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy > - participate and stop something from happening > > While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications.   Or even that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic modalities on Internet Governance.  they too get a voice. > > And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of that voice. > > So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. > > I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation seem like capitulation to their power grab.  So for any civil society group that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating becomes critical. > > avri > > > > > On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: > >> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >> >> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >> >> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent oversight body is legitimate. >> >> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >> >> The phrase in this text,  "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game would be over before it even got started. >> >> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom Committee >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein >> To: governance >> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >> To: Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its plans public! >> >> Michael, >> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >> >> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet users a seat at the table. >> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and participate in a global community. >> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive manner. >> >> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's future by signing the petition below. >> In solidarity, >> The Access Team >> For more information: >> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT >> ITU Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet >> Hey ITU Member States: No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals >> 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 kovenronald at aol.com Fri Jun 1 18:49:19 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> , <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8CF0E5FE9D2939E-2160-D032@webmail-d156.sysops.aol.com> Dear Milton -- A host country agreement gives the beneficiary party at least a measure of extraterritoriality. I assume that the point of the suggestion is to remove ICANN from US legal jurisdiction and therefore accomplish the goal of turning it into an entity that is not subject to US government oversight, without becoming a member agency of the UN system, subject to control by member states. But each such agreement is sui generis, and if exceptions were required for particular laws like anti-trust that would be feasible, I'm not sure that would make a lot of sense in the case of anti-trust. ICANN performs services analagous to those of a licensing agency or a public utility, whose monopolistic status is accepted because of its very nature as a sole service provider. Anyway, the suggestion is a clever possible way around the dichotomy we have so far been confronted with between international or US national control and/or oversight. To date, I believe host country agreements have been made only with international agencies. Making one with a body like ICANN would break new legal ground. Another legal analogy that might be worth exploring is the international legal status of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller To: governance Sent: Fri, Jun 1, 2012 8:54 pm Subject: RE: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns Can someone explain to me what a "host country agreement" accomplishes for Internet users and service operators? My vague understanding of it is that from a legal perspective, such agreements can actually immunize the organization from various forms of legal accountability which, imho, is not something we want to do. For example, ICANN _should_ be subject to antitrust law; it _should_ be subject to the membership requirements of California public benefit law (and stop pretending that it doesn't have members). And, those of you who want this to happen because California law is too remote and parochial for, say a villager in Zimbabwe, please explain to me how a host country agreement in Geneva is any more accessible to a villager in Zimbabw? The government of Zimbabwe, perhaps, but the people there? This could just be my own ignorance of a what a host country agreement is, but please, let's make the rights and benefits it affords Netizens the standard here, not conformity to past intergovernmental patterns. --MM From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. Me too, and we are waiting patiently here in Geneva. But on the off chance that proves a tough sell in certain quarters, how about something more incremental: independent of the USG, with a host country agreement, in the US? There's a few international organizations there that have these already… 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 isolatednet at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 20:10:37 2012 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:40:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. > > The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or > need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. > +1 > > Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes > beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent > oversight body is legitimate. > +1 > > Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but > asking to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a > recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. > > The phrase in this text, "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU > negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game > would be over before it even got started. > > Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom Committee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein > To: governance > Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm > Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org ] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM > *To:* Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* Our internet is at risk > > > Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a closed > UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the ITU we > don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its plans > public! > > Michael, > The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, > decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- *is threatened.* > > Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing to > expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the > International Telecommunication Union (ITU), *allowing it to change the > rules on how our internet is used and governed.* And what's worse, the > ITU won't even release their negotiating documents to the public or give > internet users a seat at the table. > *The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change > that.* Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only > governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! > *Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public > and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting.* > The ITU gives every country one vote -- *that's why it’s crucial we call > upon our individual governments to support our cause.* Multi-stakeholder > governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access > sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and > participate in a global community. > Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, and > others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control > over how you access the internet. *Imagine how that might impact your > privacy, security, and freedom of speech online.* > The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum > management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding > its mandate. *While an evolution of internet governance is needed > (including an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the > same way that it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and > inclusive manner. * > > Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a > letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV > (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part > of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. > *Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the > internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the > internet's future by signing the petition below. > * > In solidarity, > The Access Team > *For more information:* > Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT > ITU Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet > Hey ITU Member States: No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals > ------------------------------ > *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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatednet at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 20:28:34 2012 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:58:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: > > - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy > - participate and stop something from happening > > While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications. Or even that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic modalities on Internet Governance.  they too get a voice. > > And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of that voice. The ITU has a voice and role in the IGF; What it now attempts to do is to take the process to its own turf and also close the doors for stakeholders. In this context, what Koven Ronald says is right. However, Civil Society needs to be a part of WCIT to help the ITU get its Telecom Business Policy in order. ITU needs some strong feedback from stakeholders on the gaps in its work on the Telecom peering arrangements and other convenient omissions that cause some of its Telecom members have an excessive advantage over many others. These gaps leave the Telecom users around the world in a situation where users are charged artificially bloated prices while on International roaming, for example. Sivasubramanian M > > So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. > > I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation seem like capitulation to their power grab.  So for any civil society group that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating becomes critical. > > avri > > > > > On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: > >> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >> >> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >> >> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent oversight body is legitimate. >> >> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >> >> The phrase in this text,  "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game would be over before it even got started. >> >> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom Committee >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein >> To: governance >> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >> To: Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its plans public! >> >> Michael, >> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >> >> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet users a seat at the table. >> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and participate in a global community. >> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive manner. >> >> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's future by signing the petition below. >> In solidarity, >> The Access Team >> For more information: >> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT >> ITU Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet >> Hey ITU Member States: No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals >> 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 20:32:03 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:32:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] The UN is trying to take over administration of the Internet, I could barely contain my joy Shaw-ZDnet Message-ID: For lightening the mood but on a serious note: Putting the United Nations in charge of the Internet is the best idea ever By Steven Shaw | May 30, 2012, 12:15pm PDT Summary: When I’m stumped by geopolitical challenges and I ask myself “What organization can really get the job done?” my answer is always “The United Nations.” http://www.zdnet.com/blog/law/putting-the-united-nations-in-charge-of-the-internet-is-the-best-idea-ever/111 -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 21:00:23 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:00:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <56E88EE83D774062BF5821D10F240465@UserVAIO> Oksana, Why/on whose orders/recommendation were they blocked? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Oksana Prykhodko Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil Hi, all Today Facebook blocked accounts of nearly 10 Ukrainian independent journalists. But, after active campaign in social media and addresses to Facebook CEO, these accounts were unblocked. May be it is time to think about ombudsmen for social media - as a mediator between users and CEO? Best regards, Oksana 2012/6/1 William Drake : > Hi Marilia > > > On May 31, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I am totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. > But this is a crossborder issue that involves private forces and > public interest. Tell me the place where we can globally tackle this > issue, all together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I will be the > first to attend and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come > about. But first we probably need to fight for such a space to exist. > > > I guess I'm with Roland and others who'd note that the Internet is not > the web and the web is not FB, so while FB's TOR are overly paranoid > and restrictive, there are other places to post stuff, and it's at > least debatable whether this rises to the level of being global > Internet governance.  But I have different questions.  In > conversations in Geneva and here (and the IT4C letter did the same), > you've cited FB policies as evidence there's an urgent need for > enhanced cooperation in the form of a platform under the UN.   But why > not organize an online campaign---per ACTA SOPA PIPA—of fellow FB > users to put pressure on FB directly (and for that matter, use the IGF > in parallel to stoke the debate), rather than creating a centralized > uber mechanism responsible for this and all else? >  Why do you think a WG/CIRP/whatever that would be populated inter alia by > Geneva reps of the very governments that make FB paranoid in the first place > would be more likely to agree that nudity is ok and FB should allow it > without fear of government reprisals? > > There are many CS and other actors who share your concerns about > individual issues---FoE IPR privacy surveillance etc---and the meta > issue of concentrated power but just have trouble seeing a one-stop > shop in the UN as the right solution.  Since the case for why it would > be really hasn't been made in any detail, isn't there a risk that > insisting it's the only option left-minded people may consider (and in > some tellings, that any nonbelievers are morally suspect, don't care > about developing countries, etc) just limits coalition building?  Can > we agree that at the Baku pre-event and beyond, it'd be useful to work > through the relative merits of different institutional designs?   > Personally, I've always favored WGs in the IGF & > strengthening/connecting advocacy coalitions working in different > spaces (although as the APC network of networks effort showed, that's > difficult), but there are other options, a new UN body being just one.   > So let's compare and contrast? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charlespmok at gmail.com Fri Jun 1 23:42:59 2012 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:42:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <56E88EE83D774062BF5821D10F240465@UserVAIO> References: <56E88EE83D774062BF5821D10F240465@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Similar happened in HK yesterday and about 10 social activists including one opposition legislator had their fb accounts suspended for a few hours. I contacted fb public policy people and around the same time their accounts gradually came back unblocked. fb has not provided clear explanation of the reasons. English report: (paid content) http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=445f1383709a7310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News Widely reported in Chinese newspapers also. Charles On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Oksana, > > Why/on whose orders/recommendation were they blocked? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Oksana > Prykhodko > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:24 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in > Brazil > > > Hi, all > > Today Facebook blocked accounts of nearly 10 Ukrainian independent > journalists. But, after active campaign in social media and addresses to > Facebook CEO, these accounts were unblocked. > > May be it is time to think about ombudsmen for social media - as a mediator > between users and CEO? > > Best regards, > Oksana > > 2012/6/1 William Drake : > > Hi Marilia > > > > > > On May 31, 2012, at 11:28 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > I am totally in favor of achieving "harmony" on this and other topics. > > But this is a crossborder issue that involves private forces and > > public interest. Tell me the place where we can globally tackle this > > issue, all together, in a multistakeholder fashion and I will be the > > first to attend and try to contribute so that “harmony” can come > > about. But first we probably need to fight for such a space to exist. > > > > > > I guess I'm with Roland and others who'd note that the Internet is not > > the web and the web is not FB, so while FB's TOR are overly paranoid > > and restrictive, there are other places to post stuff, and it's at > > least debatable whether this rises to the level of being global > > Internet governance. But I have different questions. In > > conversations in Geneva and here (and the IT4C letter did the same), > > you've cited FB policies as evidence there's an urgent need for > > enhanced cooperation in the form of a platform under the UN. But why > > not organize an online campaign---per ACTA SOPA PIPA—of fellow FB > > users to put pressure on FB directly (and for that matter, use the IGF > > in parallel to stoke the debate), rather than creating a centralized > > uber mechanism responsible for this and all else? > > Why do you think a WG/CIRP/whatever that would be populated inter alia > by > > Geneva reps of the very governments that make FB paranoid in the first > place > > would be more likely to agree that nudity is ok and FB should allow it > > without fear of government reprisals? > > > > There are many CS and other actors who share your concerns about > > individual issues---FoE IPR privacy surveillance etc---and the meta > > issue of concentrated power but just have trouble seeing a one-stop > > shop in the UN as the right solution. Since the case for why it would > > be really hasn't been made in any detail, isn't there a risk that > > insisting it's the only option left-minded people may consider (and in > > some tellings, that any nonbelievers are morally suspect, don't care > > about developing countries, etc) just limits coalition building? Can > > we agree that at the Baku pre-event and beyond, it'd be useful to work > > through the relative merits of different institutional designs? > > Personally, I've always favored WGs in the IGF & > > strengthening/connecting advocacy coalitions working in different > > spaces (although as the APC network of networks effort showed, that's > > difficult), but there are other options, a new UN body being just one. > > So let's compare and contrast? > > > > 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 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jun 2 03:29:50 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:29:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: (message from Izumi AIZU on Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:51 +0900) References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: <20120602072950.D0D811F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Izumi AIZU wrote: > Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, > statement, in time? In my view, if we don't go there and don't explain our perspective, we should expect many developing country government representatives to accept ITU's perspective without doubting or questioning it. In my opinion it is therefore important to go, not only to make a statement, but also to work on building relationships with government representatives and to help them understand why an ITU style approach to Internet governance would be fundamentally wrong. It is of course always a question of resources though... 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jun 2 04:14:56 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:14:56 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Stuxnet, Iran & US References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE09@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE15@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> BTW, the secret Stuxnet Program was coded by the USG as "Olympic Games". People who are involved in ICANN issues will remember, that the IOC is fighting to get special protection for the names "Olympiad" and "Olympics". Is this now a misuse of a trademark by the USG and what the IOC thinks about naming the Stuxnet Project "Olympic Games"? LOL (not yet owned by Google Inc.) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pouzin at gmail.com im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well) Gesendet: Fr 01.06.2012 18:07 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Stuxnet, Iran & US Good article for non specialists on the stux worm that stalled Iran nuclear plant. - - - - On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:06 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: FYI http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=2&hp&pagewanted=all 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jun 2 04:38:30 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:38:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Cyberconflict Conference Tallin References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8CF0E5FE9D2939E-2160-D032@webmail-d156.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE17@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.ccdcoe.org/cycon/3.html Wouldn´t this also a good subject for the IGF in Baku? 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jun 2 06:37:28 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:37:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120601212854.775AE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> <20120601212854.775AE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20120601212854.775AE1F5A at quill.bollow.ch>, at 23:28:54 on Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >> I'm not sure why we can't use the example of various ccTLDs which have >> had very successful multi-stakeholder participation and policy making >> for many years. Why wait till 2014 for .berlin to be a shining example, >> when we already have .uk? > >Well, as I understand it at least the main point of introducing city >TLDs is to support cities with reinventing themselves to some extent >as entities with visible existence not only in the physical realm but >also online. > >This reinventing process implies engaging a much wider variety of >people than who would participate in ccTLD governance processes >which as far as I know are very much focused on the technical and >administrative dimensions That may be the case for some ccTLDs but I don't think it's universal. What was needed, I thought, was a model for multistakeholder participation, what you discuss after that can be expanded very easily if you already have all the stakeholders at the table. -- 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 Sat Jun 2 07:13:36 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:43:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FC9F560.6050300@itforchange.net> Avri Thanks for taking this dialogue forward. Proactive work on means and models to internationalise CIR oversight, meaning ridding it from US control, is the same battle as not letting the ITU impose a new top-down, closed hierarchical CIR/ technical management architecture. These are not too different battles. If more and more developing countries are to be stopped from going for the ITU model (to put it roughly) they need to provided alternatives to the the unacceptable features of the present model. And we, civil society, need to do it. We cant just rue that no alternative has been presented. /We/ need to present it. And then write about (and fully publicise) our non-acceptance of US control model, and our proposed new model, to the US government and others, and take up active advocacy on it. In the same way as we so much like to often write to ITU, UN SG, CSTD chair etc. Apart from showing the right way forward, it will give the right image of neutrality and representing global public interest to civil society involved with IG, and also specifically to the IGC. Going to the specifics; it is not true that no open and participative models outside the UN have been presented. Carlos Afonso presented a detailed model during WGIG ( found in the chapter written by him in the book 'Reforming Internet Governance' www.wgig.org/docs/book/WGIG_book.pdf ). I understand that this model had some kind of support from the Brazilian government. Why did we not pursue it, even if with modifications? Carlos suggested a specific multistakeholder oversight mechanism. I have also been suggesting the outlines of a oversight mechanism which goes beyond typical inter-gov model. Why dont we consider such alternatives? There are a few issues, as follows, that I have with people who have just expressed a general wish for multistakeholder without getting into specifics. We need to get into specifics. I am sure we can resolve these issues with discussion and clarifications. 1) It is easy to say things should be multistakeholder. The real problem comes when one has to recommend the specific way multistakeholder reps will be chosen. ITfC has always focussed on this as the key issue, becuase in such specifics alone one can know what one really means by such a new governance system. We made clear recommendations on how stakeholder reps should be chosen in our submission to WG on IGF improvements, which recs were also picked up by India's IGF reform proposal. We have long advocated the .Br model in this regard, and intend to hold a workshop on it at Baku. Somewhat surprisingly, all the most enthusiastic advocates of MS-ism on this list have always shied away from talking about such specifics. There can be no multistakeholder (MS) governance model if its votaries are not ready to talk about the specifics. 2) A connected point is, the role and influence of big business on Internet politics. For groups like ours, this is an extremely important issue, but when we see MS-ists pass it by lightly, we are indeed very concerned. Any MS governance model must make incorporate enough safeguards that its one and only objective is to increase public representativity, and not further increase the economic, social and political might of global big business. We must agree on this point and on due processes that will take care of this concern. We need to come up with specific proposals that address these issues, and then advocate them seriously. When developing countries see us going even ahead of them in seeking due corrections in the global IG system, in a manner that is really effective, i e by providing real alternative models, then they will know we are really neutral, and seek to serve the global public interest. Such a proactive stance then also helps us negotiate and get advantages and benefits in other areas, like, to start with, restraining ITU from gaining any undue role in global IG (while supporting the roles that are legitimate for ITU). parminder On Friday 01 June 2012 06:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think Parminder makes good points on why ICANN must become independent of the US government. > > I personally beleive, and have believed for a long time, that it should have a host country agreement with an appropriate host country. > > >>> The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) >>> > Just to be clear I don't trust either. > I am all in favor of the US efforts to stop anything that even hints at a UN takeover of any element of control, be it over IPv4/6, TLDs, ASNs or IETF numbers. > But I also stand against continued US control over these things. > > I still maintain the point I made in WGIG with various others, we do not need any form of national or international governmental oversight for ICANN. What we need is well established multistakeholder oversight (I think there were even several proposals at the time of WSIS and since as to how this could be established). > > The main operational problem with making a transition to a structure other than a US corporate structure is how maintain its contractual agreements until new form of regulatory control over Registries and Registrars can be established. Currently those serving the GTLD market are 'regulated' via contract and these are specifically California based contracts. One of the advantages of moving to a form of regulation that is not California contract based is that it will allow for regulation to be extended over the ccTLDs who rightly bristle at the notion of being regulated by a US corporation and thus are free to do whatever they please. Unfortunately , however, I don't think anyone yet has made a coherent proposal for how that transition, from regulation via contract to international multistakeholder regulation could be made. > > avri > > > On 1 Jun 2012, at 08:11, parminder wrote: > > >> On Friday 01 June 2012 04:47 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Hi Wolfgang, >>> >>> The first argument against continued US oversight of the ICANN is political-democratic. I will respond to your specific points in another email. >>> >> Now turning to some specific points. >> You ask, what is our main problem with US oversight of ICANN. Well, the biggest one is, ICANN is a US nonprofit, subject to all laws of the US, big and small. In fact even if it wanted to, the executive branch of the government may not be able to protect ICANN from being made subject to all these US laws. Do you, or do you not, agree with this proposition? And as the Internet becomes the platform and infrastructure of such a big part of our global social, economic, cultural and political systems and structures, this situation is both completely untenable and unacceptable. >> Anybody believing in democracy would not want to be subject to the laws in making of which s/he does not participate. At any time ICANN can be made to act as per US laws and US interest. You would have heard of the Internet Kill Switch legislation which at present seems to be shelved. It would have given US President executive control – if one is to believe that he does not have it already - over all critical infrastructure of the Internet. One has no reason to believe that this excluded the ICANN and the authoritative root zone server. Well, before you start arguing that these security related sovereign fears are misplaced, you may want to explain that why, in that case, does US want to control the position of the chief security officer of the ICANN (or of the IANA contractee)? On what basis do you advocate that other countries simply ignore all such deeply serious matters and concerns? Can you guarantee that the next Afghanistan or Iraq invasion will not happen along with tampering of the concerned country domain spaces? Since, the US seems to be the only country that launches such unilateral aggressions, it is in fact the one country least qualified – and not the most qualified, as you seem to argue - to sit over the control of the Internet's root. >> Since you seem to be comfortable with the status quo, at the same time as you ignore the above issues, you exaggerate the problems with the alternatives. First of all, you have not engaged with a, non-typical-UN, international body's oversight possibility that I proposed, with regional representation, rotated among countries,and with the member being chosen through a broader process within the country though having some alignment with the concerned government as well. Also, as proposed by me, this new body will have only very limited functions, all of them clearly defined by due internationally legal process (unlike it is with the US at present). It would not require consensus to approve every root server entry, but perhaps a majority or some such arrangement. I can easily see the system working, at least as well as the present one. >> Even the CIRP did not set out the precise manner in which oversight functions may be exercised, because it was a general conversation-starter proposal. In any case, nowhere it is proposed that every root server entry will require consensus. You are just making it up to argue your case. I am sure if the Indian government was to get into the specifics, it is mature and pragmatic enough to ensure a system that works. And it is my feeling that they will also consider an outside-the-UN oversight system of the kind I have proposed. Therefore your main argument against internationalizing oversight of CIRs just does not hold. >> About the AoC, you know that US can rescind it any moment. In any case, why not enter a similar AoC with the UN? Will you agree? If not, can you please tell me the reason? >> The simple truth is, many people here trust the US government more than they do the UN. I dont, and the overwhelming majority in the South doesnt. (Most people in the North may also not.) >> Parminder >> PS: BTW, as I have said before, without intending to offend anyone, I again beg to state that I personally do not think ICANN does very important work, at any rate not the most important work in global IG. My interest is rather more on the social, economic, cultural policies side. >> >> >> >>> In order to seek democracy, one need not have to give instances of what a dictator did wrong, which could be better in a democracy. Inversely, it also hardly works to quote examples, in defense of dictatorship, of how a dictator did not do something which he could well have for his private gain or the gain of his cohorts. Every dictator knows how to defend at least the illusion of legitimacy for his rule! (This explains the US gov's action vis a vis .xxx, that you hold out as such a shining example of US in the role of what you call as the 'neutral steward(ship) of the Internet community". >>> And the logic you use about how a body with more democratic representation can cause confusion, stalemates and other such problems can as easily be used against bringing in a democratic parliament instead of a dictator. A few hundred politicians, all with individual agendas, coming from very different backgrounds (often from warring groups and tribes in a new democracy), with little training in the high art of state-ship.... Well, this seems to presents a worse picture even than the one you present for the UN, isnt it! But still people, very knowledgeable people, give their lives to seek just this kind of democracy. >>> In fact, sometimes, only sometimes, the immediate results may actually look worse than the condition before – See, Egypt for instance, there is acute lawlessness on the streets of Cairo, there is fear of persecution of minorities, women are afraid of Shariat law being imposed etc. Wise and knowledgeable people could have predicted this general picture even before Tahrir square happened. But they went ahead with the revolution. As famously said, the remedy for the ills of democracy is more democracy. If we perceive certain kinds of problems in democraticising the oversight of the Internet, we can think of different alternative democratic institutional systems, and also the struggle of improving systems would always be ongoing.But please dont preach continued lordship of one country over all. >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 01 June 2012 02:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marilia, >>>> >>>> I fully support the spirit of your mail. Good and reasonable points. I wrote an article "Beyond ITU vs. ICANN" ten years ago and, as you have outlined, unfortunately the "good guys vs. bad guys" mechanism continues (very often without any justifiable reason or just for a domestic purpose (in the US) to be treated by an un-informed broader public as the "saver of the freedom of the Internet" in an election year). So far so god (or bad). >>>> >>>> But let me take your points one step further and comment on one concrete point: >>>> >>>> You say: "a) there is no way to justify US privilege position with ICANN. That needs to be changed;" >>>> >>>> I agree in principle but I would like to find out what in your opinion are the privileges your are talking about. IMHO the AoC has ended a lot of the "privileges" which were the subject of criticism in Tunis. The remaining "privileges" of the USG are >>>> a. the right to authorize the publication of TLD zone files in the root (related to the IANA function which includes, inter alia, a trilateral contractual arrangement with ICANN and VeriSign, the manager of the Hidden Root Server) and >>>> b. to have a permanent seat in the A&T Review team. >>>> >>>> Interestingly, the controversial .xxx case had a rather unnoticed sideeffect. It demonstrated that the USG executes its "authorization function" as a neutral stewart of the Internet community. As you remember, the USG - following pressure from the US Congress and parts of the US public opinion - was rather critical against .xxx. The EU Commissioner Nelly Kroes wrote a letter to Strickling just after the San Francisco ICANN meeting (where the ICANN Board voted in favour of .xxx) and encouraged him to postpone or stop the authorization of the publication of the .xxx zone file in the root. But NTIA, which is the responsible unit within the USG/DOC, followed just the ICANN/IANA procedure and respected the outcome of the (controversial) transparent and bottom up process executed by ICANN. >>>> >>>> What would be your proposal to change this procedure? Do you propose an alternative mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root? With the new gTLD programm we will have probably hundreds of controversial cases soon. Ideas to transfer this function to an intergovernmental body (a UN like Internet Security Council as discussed by WGIG in 2005 or a G 12, as proposed by EU Commissioner Reding in 2010) proofed to be bad ideas. To give the proposed CIRP an authority to approve finally TLD strings (as it was indirectly intended in the Indian proposal which wanted to give oversight functions over ICANN to the CIRP, which would include certainly also the authorization issue) is obviously also a bad idea. >>>> >>>> To give the GAC - where all governments have an equal role - an "early warning" and "advice" option under the established new gTLD program seems to me reasonable. Do you believe this is not sufficient and another body should be established to make the final decision? What would happen if all the 2000 new gTLD proposals - after they are adopted by ICANN - would need an authorization decision backed by a consensus among the members of an intergovernmental council of 12, 51 or 190 UN member states? With other words, do you have any concrete idea how the existing (and working) mechanism for the authorization of TLD zone files in the root can be further improved (enhanced) respecting also the interests of developing countries and civil society in a better way without damaging the future development of the Internet? >>>> >>>> The second point: The permanent seat for the USG in one of the four AoC review teams. What is your proposal here? I agree fully, that the review sofar did not produce the expected results. The (mutlistakeholder and decentralized) review mechanism as such is an interesting innovation and has great potential to be developed into an oversight mechanisms with "hard teeth". The first round was done in a rush. Both the governmental representatives from China and the EU were not satisfied with the procedures. The outcome was rather weak and very general. Implementation of even this weak recommendations takes time. However lets wait what the other reviews teams will produce. We will have more knowledge if the four reviews are completed. >>>> >>>> A second round has to go far beyond. In my eyes, the "transparency and accountability" review is central and one should start already now to prepare for the second round which starts 2013/2014. The good thing is, that civil society (via the ALAC) has also a permanent seat in this review! Any concrete proposals how to improve this mechaism? >>>> >>>> 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 sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Sat Jun 2 08:59:35 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:59:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] Cyberconflict Conference Tallin In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE17@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8CF0E5FE9D2939E-2160-D032@webmail-d156.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE17@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Or this. http://www.ccdcoe.org/249.html MILCW - Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare"The Tallinn Manual" 2012/6/2 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > FYI > > http://www.ccdcoe.org/cycon/3.html > > Wouldn´t this also a good subject for the IGF in Baku? > > 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 Sat Jun 2 09:05:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:35:30 +0530 Subject: FW: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> On Friday 01 June 2012 09:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I'm re-sending this because Parminder has ignored it. Really > interested in rational dialogue on this topic. > Oh, I did not realise you are really interested in a rational dialogue on this topic! Because your email basically rejected my proposal on ICANN oversight ex ante as not worthy of consideration, since I dont attend ICANN meetings, I am "oddly ignorant of post WSIS critiques of 'oversight' and 'public policy'" (whose critiques? yours?), and you wonder "whose agenda is it (meaning, my proposal), because it is certainly not civil society's". And after this summary rejection, you pointed me to your own submission on 'ICANN transition' of 2009, apparently as the only proposal worthy of discussion. Do you think this lays the ground for a 'rational dialogue'? (BTW, you may remember that ITfC supported the shorter advocacy statement that you prepared at that time, and so, yes, I am aware of this longer document as well.) I understand, basically you want me to comment on /your/ proposal of 'ICANN transition' at the refered link http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf . Sure, why not. Your submission says, there should be a US led international agreement on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by what does 'US led' mean. Pl explain. I can only understand international agreements under international systems, like the UN. An international agreement requires a international body as a guarantor, it cannot be guaranteed by a party national government alone. However, we, in general, do agree that ICANN's status and role should be given and guaranteed by an international agreement. Quoting your proposal "Governments should be involved not as "oversight" authorities or "public policy makers" but as backers of a shared legal framework that maintains accountability and gives non-state actors a legal basis for settling important disputes." I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I quote from my email / proposal "... this body will have a very narrowly defined role, with duly laid out procedure to fulfil it. There would not be much proactive work for it to do at all. " How do you think this corresponds to your observations on my proposal, and I quote you "The big difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" body with the arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and impose it on ICANN processes and communities, whereas our proposals are designed to prevent just that." ???? In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to be quite confused between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and at the same time putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to FoE regulation, anti-trust law etc (through the international agreement). This is subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it. Yes, public policy written clearly in an legal instrument, with a clearly laid down process of enforcing it. Nothing more have I asked for. However sometime what is legitimate public policy may have different versions that just the Milton one :). But still we agree basically this is what it is. Then you seek " an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN should operate", whereby you mean an body of US law. No we cant agree here US law is made and can be changed by US legislature, and that doesnt work for the rest of the world. The appropriate body has to be of international law. You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use California law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt work for me. I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global resource at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek to subvert relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA with in favour of international arbitration. Why being so stingy about sticking to national law and redress systems in this case. Why cant we have an international redress system. So, whose agenda your proposal is, US government's? (Sorry, could not resist it :) ) parminder > ============== > > Some responses to Parminder's views on CIR oversight > > It is important to do so, if we have to legitimately argue for > safe-guarding existing distributed system of CIR management and > technical standards setting. > > [MM] Let me begin by pointing out that neither you nor your group has > ever attended an ICANN meeting, nor have you sought membership or > participation in the civil society representational organs of ICANN, > despite many invitations and despite the many battles ICANN civil > society has needed help to fight. Thus, it is surprising to see you > eager to redefine the whole structure suddenly. One wonder whose > agenda it is, as it is certainly not civil society's. Also, some > awareness of the behavior of the Governmental Advisory Committee > within ICANN might be sufficient to convince those with a > reality-focused, objective perspective that the types of "oversight" > you are calling for can be troublesome, to put it mildly. I'd > encourage you to make better use of the many resources - experience, > expertise, and networks - that already exist among ICANN-focused civil > society, before developing yet another manifesto. > > The other option is that developing countries lean towards the ITU, > which can shift the terrain toward development of a new top-down, > centralised and bureaucratic CIR management/ tech standards model. > > [MM] Many developing countries have "leaned toward the ITU" for years. > It is unlikely to affect anything. If the case for your proposed > changes is fear of this alternative, it is a very weak case. > > (1) Shifting oversight of CIRs from US gov to an international body > > [MM] It should not be "international" it should be "non-national." To > be "international" is to be an intergovernmental organization, which > means _/not acceptable to Internet freedom advocates/_. A smaller club > of governments (which has been proposed by European Commission at one > time) could be even worse. Oddly, you seem to be completely unaware of > the critiques of the whole notion of "oversight," and its sister > concept of "public policy" that have been developed in the wake of WSIS. > > The path toward accountability and legitimate process in CIRs is > _/not/_ going to come from concepts of an additional (governmental or > MS) committee providing "oversight" on behalf of "public policy" or > "public interest" concerns. On the contrary, as we have learned from > the end game of the new gTLD process, the concept of oversight > inevitably devolves into a politicized battle among special interests > to undo, or re-do, policies emerging from the bottom up process if > they don't like the outcome. "Oversight" means arbitrary, politicized, > unpredictable and hence unjust and inefficient process. "Oversight" > means imposing another unaccountable board on top of the existing > ICANN board, when the problem is that the existing one is not > accountable enough. Replacing US oversight with oversight by multiple > governments compounds the problem we have, it doesn't fix it. > > What is needed are clear rules - rules designed both to restrain and > limit ICANN, and to restrain and limit the external forces, including > especially governments, who might interfere with ICANN and its > processes. IGP made a pretty good start at defining the principles > underlying such rules in its filings on the ICANN "transition" back in > 2009. > http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf > (See section "Revising the model") > > In those comments, you may find a great deal of common ground - we > recognize the need for legally binding forms of accountability and > that this may need to involve coordinated action among states to pass > a treaty. The big difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" > body with the arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and > impose it on ICANN processes and communities, whereas our proposals > are designed to prevent just that. We want the involved community to > make policy, within very narrowly defined boundaries, and we want > rules we need from governments, and liberal, freedom-enhancing rules - > not a blank check to second-guess or re-do or control and regulate > people's actions via the Internet. > > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jun 2 10:38:41 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:38:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Jun 2, 2012, at 3:05 PM, parminder wrote: > Quoting your proposal > "Governments should be involved not as “oversight” authorities or “public policy makers” but as backers of a > shared legal framework that maintains accountability and gives non-state actors a legal basis for settling important disputes." > I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I quote from my email / proposal "... this body will have a very narrowly defined role, with duly laid out procedure to fulfil it. There would not be much proactive work for it to do at all. " How do you think this corresponds to your observations on my proposal, and I quote you > > "The big difference is that you seem to want an "oversight" body with the arbitrary power to make policy from the top down and impose it on ICANN processes and communities, whereas our proposals are designed to prevent just that." ???? Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having so much fun, this really caught my eye. From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with authoritative policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental body. Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty? If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations... Thanks, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 2 13:20:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:50:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] CSTD meeting on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having > so much fun, this really caught my eye. From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP > proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with > authoritative policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. Hi Bill You are welcome to partake of the fun. Ok, on to substantive matters. US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a vis ICANN. WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the role played by US Dept of Commerce. Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight should impact the meaning of what oversight is. > In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke > of transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental body. This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) > Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means > ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty? Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. > If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. That is really welcome. > I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there > could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation > of Commitments on zone file authorizations... I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please explain. Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how that would do. But ready to discuss. (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. However we do make our positions about which way the world and its insitutions should go independent of such assessment. Our constitution writers wrote those lofty ideals and built institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) parminder > > Thanks, > > 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Jun 2 16:55:18 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:55:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: (message from Roland Perry on Sat, 2 Jun 2012 11:37:28 +0100) References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> <20120601212854.775AE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120602205518.9E9931F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > Fri, 1 Jun 2012, Norbert Bollow writes > >Well, as I understand it at least the main point of introducing city > >TLDs is to support cities with reinventing themselves to some extent > >as entities with visible existence not only in the physical realm but > >also online. > > > >This reinventing process implies engaging a much wider variety of > >people than who would participate in ccTLD governance processes > >which as far as I know are very much focused on the technical and > >administrative dimensions > > That may be the case for some ccTLDs but I don't think it's universal. > > What was needed, I thought, was a model for multistakeholder > participation, what you discuss after that can be expanded very easily > if you already have all the stakeholders at the table. Hmm... I'm deeply sceptical about all assertions that any change in governance processes can be very easy, or that it is even possible to get all stakeholders which are relevant to a broad set of issues to come to a table while only a small subset is being discussed. Nevertheless, at the present stage I think that it would certainly be valuable to look at several models besides the ones that I primarily have in mind (IETF as the "what exists already" model, and now, on the basis of Tom's suggestion, in addition city TLD governance as test cases for emerging theories of how public interest oriented governance can work in practice for a much broader set of topics than IETF's much narrower, rather technical scope). So I would certainly welcome suggestions of specific ccTLDs that might provide a worthwhile "model for multistakeholder participation", especially if the suggestion is accompanied by an answer to the question how I and others can acquire enough insight into how the model works do that it can in actual practice serve as a model. The idea of using IETF as a model has the big advange that there are very many people, globally, who have practical experience of how things work there. By contrast I'd expect that for most ccTLDs there will be very few people outside the respective country who really know how the respective governance processes work. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 2 21:04:11 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:04:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCAB80B.1040309@cafonso.ca> With this bringing of the elephant to the room (in this case, the ITU) again, USA & the associated lobbies which resist the creation of *any* international system of Internet governance restart the old blablabla we were tired to hear before bringing CIRs to the IGF table in 2007... The same folks, the same terrifying arguments. In the meantime, European countries already have in place a multilateral governance system which is deciding, through different instances and more or less coordinated bodies, quite relevant issues like international mobile data roaming fees, net neutrality recommendations and so on. They can, the rest of the world should not... strange indeed! --c.a. On 05/31/2012 11:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns > > A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international > regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, Republicans, > the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf. > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu > st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 02:15:16 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:15:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120602205518.9E9931F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <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> <4FC88D41.2090602@ciroap.org> <4FC8F6F4.2030506@communisphere.com> <20120601212854.775AE1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120602205518.9E9931F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20120602205518.9E9931F5A at quill.bollow.ch>, at 22:55:18 on Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >So I would certainly welcome suggestions of specific ccTLDs that >might provide a worthwhile "model for multistakeholder participation", >especially if the suggestion is accompanied by an answer to the >question how I and others can acquire enough insight into how the >model works do that it can in actual practice serve as a model. I have mentioned .uk (Nominet) who have a wealth of such background information online, including sponsoring the UK IGF. Many people have first hand experience of Nominet's processes too. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Jun 3 05:10:04 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:10:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: References: <4FCAB80B.1040309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Let's suppose the internet be used by the US and her underlings for a worldwide surveillance system, then would the US gov tolerate any form of internet shared control ? This proposition may be reversed. Let's suppose the US gov rejects any form of internet shared control, then the internet could be used by the US and her underlings for a worldwide surveillance system. - - - On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > With this bringing of the elephant to the room (in this case, the ITU) > again, USA & the associated lobbies which resist the creation of *any* > international system of Internet governance restart the old blablabla we > were tired to hear before bringing CIRs to the IGF table in 2007... The > same folks, the same terrifying arguments. > > In the meantime, European countries already have in place a multilateral > governance system which is deciding, through different instances and more > or less coordinated bodies, quite relevant issues like international mobile > data roaming fees, net neutrality recommendations and so on. They can, the > rest of the world should not... strange indeed! > > --c.a. > - - - > > On 05/31/2012 11:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns > > > > A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international > > regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, > Republicans, > > the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf. > > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu > st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 06:22:08 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:22:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: > On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having so much fun, this really caught my eye. From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with authoritative policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. > > Hi Bill > > You are welcome to partake of the fun. Whoopee! > > Ok, on to substantive matters. > > US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a vis ICANN. Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been variously described by some G77 & China governments. > WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the role played by US Dept of Commerce. Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate. If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA functions. Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. * set policies on international public policy and coordination for other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other existing intergovernmental organizations. *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies. *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct arbitration, as required. Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council (IIC) that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined. Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council with broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in observer roles. Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the USG roles, It would exercise oversight of a new World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the United Nations. And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the accompanying but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager that wasn't released as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the views in the group. In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially beyond the scope of the NTIA/USG role. And unquestionably, substantially beyond just 'ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty.' Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, via intergovernmental negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in some sort of observer/advisory role. > Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight should impact the meaning of what oversight is. Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). Those countries that have advocated international oversight—BRICSA and some other upper income G77 and China members—have consistently advocated another version that'd have a much broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper either than what NTIA does or what you're saying now. > >> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental body. > > This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) So ok, you said multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does. > >> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty? > > Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly broader than just ensuring adherence to international law... > > >> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. > > That is really welcome. No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... > >> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations... > > I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please explain. Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar with the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase compliance with it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc > Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how that would do. But ready to discuss. While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which the NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when things are clearly be done properly and jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully independent, with a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps including actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do even now...). And so on. > > (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. However we do make our positions about which way the world and its insitutions should go independent of such assessment. Our constitution writers wrote those lofty ideals and built institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating intergovernmental agreements? Why not focus first on what needs to be done, and consider the range of possible forms that might help do it, especially if some are less likely to meet immediate political resistance? Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and make better use of the IGF? Cheers, 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun Jun 3 06:53:30 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:53:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Bill, On Sunday, June 3, 2012, William Drake wrote: > Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean with the above? Many thanks, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 06:53:40 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:53:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I believe it has to do with jurisdictional compliance issues. Which country's jurisdiction will this non-UN-defaulting institutional setting comply to? How will countries/govts and stakeholders be able to go to get something stopped or intervened upon? Will a US FBI request be entertained to stop megaupload and apprehend the so called perpetrators and IPR infringers to be apprehended in the sovereign state of New-Zealand or will they be first extradited to the US under international cooperation and then the case brought forward to the IG body for shutting down the IPR infringing websites? Or will interpole be this IG bodies safe guard for law enforcement and which system of international law treaty does interpole follow to be part of this system. The suggestions look good on paper but are not the least bit practical. The IGF? Just another definition of the word impractical. As for ICANN, it will create trouble for itself with the kind of shenanigans its pulling off as it is clearly an example of politics in the buffer zone. Best Fouad On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having so > much fun, this really caught my eye.  From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP > proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with authoritative > policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. > > > Hi Bill > > You are welcome to partake of the fun. > > > Whoopee! > > > Ok, on to substantive matters. > > US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a > vis ICANN. > > > Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and > light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been > variously described by some G77 & China governments. > > WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the > role played by US Dept of Commerce. > > > Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen > government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate.  If > you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA > functions. > > Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that > would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and > *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of > IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. > * set policies on international public policy and coordination for > other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity > and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other > existing intergovernmental organizations. > *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies. > *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader > Internet agenda, including but not limited to > capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international > interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. > *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct > arbitration, as required. > > Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council (IIC) > that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and > engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined. > > Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council with > broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in observer > roles.  Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the USG roles, It > would exercise oversight of a new World Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the United Nations. > > And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the accompanying > but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager that wasn't released > as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the views in the group. > > In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS > discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially beyond > the scope of the NTIA/USG role.  And unquestionably, substantially beyond > just 'ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty.' >  Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, via intergovernmental > negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in some sort of observer/advisory > role. > > > Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, > yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length > role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to > clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such > instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight > should impact the meaning of what oversight is. > > > Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear.  NTIA/USG exercises > one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does > so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries > to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board).  Those countries > that have advocated international oversight—BRICSA and some other upper > income G77 and China members—have consistently advocated another version > that'd have a much broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper > either than what NTIA does or what you're saying now. > > >  In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke of > transferring oversight  from the USG to an intergovernmental body. > > > This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to divert > from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) > > > My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical > governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be > transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral > body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical > governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in > the technical governance systems are certainly needed.)  So ok, you said > multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. > And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, > which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does. > > >  Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means ensuring > adherence to international law established by a treaty? > > > Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent > change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. > > > I'm having trouble squaring the two.  NTIA functions + broader global policy > making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly broader than > just ensuring adherence to international law... > > >  If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. > > > That is really welcome. > > > No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... > > >  I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there could be > alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation of Commitments > on zone file authorizations... > > > I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please > explain. > > > Do you mean this in some rhetorical way?  I'm sure you're familiar with the > AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase compliance with > it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc > > Among whom would these AoCs  be made? Are these unilateral declarations of > good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how that would do. But > ready to discuss. > > > While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the > commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the > community" to avoid annoying you ;-).  Imagine an ICANN in which the NTIA > role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when things are > clearly be done properly and jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and > ICANN becomes fully independent, with a host country agreement somewhere > "appropriate."  And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps > including actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN.  For example, it > swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times > of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do even > now...).  And so on. > > > (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of success > in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a treaty is the > right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the cover of > pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of all countries > adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. However we do make > our positions about which way the world and its insitutions should go > independent of such assessment. Our constitution writers wrote those lofty > ideals and built institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) > > > I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. > > My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on nudity, > why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional options than > just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating intergovernmental > agreements?  Why not focus first on what needs to be done, and consider the > range of possible forms that might help do it, especially if some are less > likely to meet immediate political resistance?  Why not do campaigns around > specific issues, and make better use of the IGF? > > Cheers, > > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sun Jun 3 08:01:42 2012 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 14:01:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Le 03/06/12 11:10, « Louis Pouzin » a écrit : > Let's suppose the internet be used by the US and her underlings for a > worldwide surveillance system, then would the US gov tolerate any form of > internet shared control ? > > This proposition may be reversed. > > Let's suppose the US gov rejects any form of internet shared control, then the > internet could be used by the US and her underlings for a worldwide > surveillance system. > > - - - > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> With this bringing of the elephant to the room (in this case, the ITU) again, >> USA & the associated lobbies which resist the creation of *any* international >> system of Internet governance restart the old blablabla we >> were tired to hear before bringing CIRs to the IGF table in 2007... The same >> folks, the same terrifying arguments. >> >> In the meantime, European countries already have in place a multilateral >> governance system which is deciding, through different instances and more or >> less coordinated bodies, quite relevant issues like international mobile data >> roaming fees, net neutrality recommendations and so on. They can, the rest of >> the world should not... strange indeed! >> >> --c.a. >> - - - >> >> On 05/31/2012 11:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> > >>> > U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns >>> > >>> > A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international >>> > regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, >>> Republicans, >>> > the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf. >>> > >>> > >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu >>> st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 >>> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sun Jun 3 08:03:23 2012 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 14:03:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Très drôle, mon cher Louis! Je te mets en attaché le programme du numéro de revue sur la gouvernance d¹internet que j¹ai en préparation. Je t¹ai mis en ³grand témoin² et j¹espère que tu nous feras l¹honneur de nous faire une contribution (sur le thème ³et si ICANN...² dont nous avions discuté)... à bientôt de tes nouvelles Divina Le 03/06/12 11:10, « Louis Pouzin » a écrit : > Let's suppose the internet be used by the US and her underlings for a > worldwide surveillance system, then would the US gov tolerate any form of > internet shared control ? > > This proposition may be reversed. > > Let's suppose the US gov rejects any form of internet shared control, then the > internet could be used by the US and her underlings for a worldwide > surveillance system. > > - - - > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> With this bringing of the elephant to the room (in this case, the ITU) again, >> USA & the associated lobbies which resist the creation of *any* international >> system of Internet governance restart the old blablabla we >> were tired to hear before bringing CIRs to the IGF table in 2007... The same >> folks, the same terrifying arguments. >> >> In the meantime, European countries already have in place a multilateral >> governance system which is deciding, through different instances and more or >> less coordinated bodies, quite relevant issues like international mobile data >> roaming fees, net neutrality recommendations and so on. They can, the rest of >> the world should not... strange indeed! >> >> --c.a. >> - - - >> >> On 05/31/2012 11:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> > >>> > U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns >>> > >>> > A U.N. summit later this year in Dubai could lead to a new international >>> > regime of censorship, taxes, and surveillance, warn Democrats, >>> Republicans, >>> > the Internet Society, and father of the Internet Vint Cerf. >>> > >>> > >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu >>> st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 >>> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RFEA Internet governance sommaire FIN.docx Type: application/msword Size: 101696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jun 3 08:29:20 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:29:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Bill, > > On Sunday, June 3, 2012, William Drake wrote: > > > Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). > > Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean with the above? If you want…As you know because you're involved, there is transgovernmental networking and communication around ICANN, just as there is around most global policy arenas/issues; maybe constant was too expansive as a quick generalization, since it presumably varies by country/relations and by situation, e.g. when decision points and negotiations are pending vs. when not. And views expressed in such contexts can influence how the NTIA interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline, just as it does how the EC interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline. The MAPO and LEA discussions provide obvious recent examples. Personally, I wish more GAC members were prepared to engage more fully and equitably rather than rely on a few to lead the charge, but that seems to be where we are now. This arguably reinforces the skepticism of those who work in the space with respect to the prospect of new ML bodies etc. 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun Jun 3 08:53:36 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:53:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Bill, On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM, William Drake wrote: > If you want…As you know because you're involved, there is transgovernmental > networking and communication around ICANN, just as there is around most > global policy arenas/issues; maybe constant was too expansive as a quick > generalization, since it presumably varies by country/relations and by > situation, e.g. when decision points and negotiations are pending vs. when > not.  And views expressed in such contexts can influence how the NTIA > interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline, just as it does how > the EC interfaces with the board in GAC meetings and offline.  The MAPO and > LEA discussions provide obvious recent examples.  Personally, I wish more > GAC members were prepared to engage more fully and equitably rather than > rely on a few to lead the charge, but that seems to be where we are now. >  This arguably reinforces the skepticism of those who work in the space with > respect to the prospect of new ML bodies etc. Thanks for elaborating. My question might have sounded rhetorical but it was not. I was struck by your use of the term "constant", as it is not my experience. But I see that indeed we agree. Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 08:57:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:57:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Foo On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I believe it has to do with jurisdictional compliance issues. Which > country's jurisdiction will this non-UN-defaulting institutional > setting comply to? How will countries/govts and stakeholders be able > to go to get something stopped or intervened upon? Will a US FBI > request be entertained to stop megaupload and apprehend the so called > perpetrators and IPR infringers to be apprehended in the sovereign > state of New-Zealand or will they be first extradited to the US under > international cooperation and then the case brought forward to the IG > body for shutting down the IPR infringing websites? Or will interpole > be this IG bodies safe guard for law enforcement and which system of > international law treaty does interpole follow to be part of this > system. I guess I don't quite grasp the connection you're making here. We're talking about whether oversight refers to the NTIA functions, some broader and centralized multilateral policy making body, or just compliance with international law. What has that got to do with US IPR law and US-NZ mutual legal assistance treaties? Are you suggesting that there should be a UN body able to supersede national and bilateral laws? > > The suggestions look good on paper but are not the least bit > practical. Which suggestions? > The IGF? Just another definition of the word impractical. > As for ICANN, it will create trouble for itself with the kind of > shenanigans its pulling off as it is clearly an example of politics in > the buffer zone. Geez, you spent years flying around the world on IGF's and ICANN's dimes and you think they're both useless? Can they get refunds? Just kidding :o) Seriously, what are you saying about oversight, that you'd favor something along the lines of BRICSA*/G77? Cheers Bill PS: *recognizing there are real variations here, e.g. RCSA favoring ITU, BI favoring more multistakeholder models, etc. > > > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> >> On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having so >> much fun, this really caught my eye. From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP >> proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with authoritative >> policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. >> >> >> Hi Bill >> >> You are welcome to partake of the fun. >> >> >> Whoopee! >> >> >> Ok, on to substantive matters. >> >> US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a >> vis ICANN. >> >> >> Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and >> light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been >> variously described by some G77 & China governments. >> >> WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the >> role played by US Dept of Commerce. >> >> >> Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen >> government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate. If >> you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA >> functions. >> >> Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that >> would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and >> *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of >> IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. >> * set policies on international public policy and coordination for >> other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity >> and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other >> existing intergovernmental organizations. >> *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on >> Internet-related public policies. >> *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader >> Internet agenda, including but not limited to >> capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international >> interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. >> *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct >> arbitration, as required. >> >> Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council (IIC) >> that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and >> engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined. >> >> Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council with >> broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in observer >> roles. Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the USG roles, It >> would exercise oversight of a new World Internet Corporation for Assigned >> Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the United Nations. >> >> And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the accompanying >> but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager that wasn't released >> as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the views in the group. >> >> In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS >> discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially beyond >> the scope of the NTIA/USG role. And unquestionably, substantially beyond >> just 'ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty.' >> Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, via intergovernmental >> negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in some sort of observer/advisory >> role. >> >> >> Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, >> yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length >> role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to >> clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such >> instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight >> should impact the meaning of what oversight is. >> >> >> Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG exercises >> one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does >> so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries >> to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board). Those countries >> that have advocated international oversight—BRICSA and some other upper >> income G77 and China members—have consistently advocated another version >> that'd have a much broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper >> either than what NTIA does or what you're saying now. >> >> >> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke of >> transferring oversight from the USG to an intergovernmental body. >> >> >> This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to divert >> from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) >> >> >> My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical >> governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and >> logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be >> transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral >> body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical >> governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in >> the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) So ok, you said >> multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. >> And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, >> which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does. >> >> >> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means ensuring >> adherence to international law established by a treaty? >> >> >> Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent >> change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. >> >> >> I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global policy >> making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly broader than >> just ensuring adherence to international law... >> >> >> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. >> >> >> That is really welcome. >> >> >> No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... >> >> >> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there could be >> alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation of Commitments >> on zone file authorizations... >> >> >> I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please >> explain. >> >> >> Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar with the >> AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase compliance with >> it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc >> >> Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral declarations of >> good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how that would do. But >> ready to discuss. >> >> >> While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the >> commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the >> community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which the NTIA >> role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when things are >> clearly be done properly and jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and >> ICANN becomes fully independent, with a host country agreement somewhere >> "appropriate." And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps >> including actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it >> swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times >> of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do even >> now...). And so on. >> >> >> (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of success >> in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a treaty is the >> right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the cover of >> pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of all countries >> adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. However we do make >> our positions about which way the world and its insitutions should go >> independent of such assessment. Our constitution writers wrote those lofty >> ideals and built institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) >> >> >> I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. >> >> My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on nudity, >> why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional options than >> just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating intergovernmental >> agreements? Why not focus first on what needs to be done, and consider the >> range of possible forms that might help do it, especially if some are less >> likely to meet immediate political resistance? Why not do campaigns around >> specific issues, and make better use of the IGF? >> >> Cheers, >> >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 09:34:51 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:34:51 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Diplomacy has its twists and turns. Don't worry, the air travel refunds would apply to a lot from the developed north as well especially the amount of hats that are changed and the games that are played in the name of IG and CS but thats a separate story and doesn't apply to this discussion. We will have to empty a lot of CS pockets funded by corporations on the western side of the world too! Lots of people already know and if they are ignorant, they will learn that the IGF and ICANN cannot do anything with ACTAs, SOPAs, PIPAs despite all the blah blah and yah yahs in the current state of affairs. IF there would be improvements (i've witnessed what happened during the CSTD last year when the US resisted extension of time to the IGF working group). It remains that the single sided right to ideas and innovation created by the citizens of the world by just one country's govt regulator and parliament is the challenge and a government affair. No oversight mechanism would truly uphold protection of anyone's human rights unless it was an interlinked body that also had its arms into existing multilateral structures including the existing UN bodies and I would have had a different feeling if I hadn't witnessed what has happened with wikileak and occupy wall street issues and the UK riots. Its much more than chit chat and I want this or that. Its a stake of world governments and I see alot of IGF participants being carried away as if they were the UN and upholder of world peace and community. No, the regulators of the Internet are no more the torch bearers of Free of Expression, Civil Liberties, the right to information and protection and promotion of democracy. There is something called intergovernmental cooperation and that affects all of us irrespective of being developed or under developed. It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website, be it american or from some other country. Ask NTIA about it and we will get a lame response totally out of scope from the question. No, no one outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical internet resources. They can work to get themselves into a network run by some other power but do not have any say in it. ICANN is not the perfect example, never was and never will be. It is just a political technical resource bufferzone. Why not survey the GAC and see how many interventions are made by developing countries per ICANN GAC meeting and wallah! It all makes perfect sense, does NTIA have the complete powerful handed over to it by the governments of the world to decide on their behalf the fate of whether their citizens can have resource ownership over their networks. What you are unable to make sense and I am is the disconnect between developed and developing. We can't understand each other because we do not live or survive in each other's shoes or circumstances. How much we read or write, we can never understand the true feeling of uncertainty and the complexities of being cyber dissidents. I don't like it when discussions are spun off towards BRICSA*/G77 settings. Its a developing country citizen perspective. US citizens are not protected in their own internetwork environment, how can I be? Does that immediately make my a safety a concern for the G-77 countries and what does my country have to do with BRICSA. The ITU executive team was in Pakistan recently and lobbying to gain support for upcoming WCITs and we should start worrying about that shouldn't we because soon there will be no space for an oversight body at all ;o) http://dailykarachitimes.com.pk/itu-may-help-pakistan-in-it-and-communication-zardari/ There will be "NO" multistakeholder oversight where "ALL" are involved today or tomorrow, why, because its the same stance that many governments hold to date, nothing but govts and private sector is organized, and just a few months back, we saw the best of it. Better wake up now than later. -- Foodafied.... On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Foo > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I believe it has to do with jurisdictional compliance issues. Which >> country's jurisdiction will this non-UN-defaulting institutional >> setting comply to? How will countries/govts and stakeholders be able >> to go to get something stopped or intervened upon? Will a US FBI >> request be entertained to stop megaupload and apprehend the so called >> perpetrators and IPR infringers to be apprehended in the sovereign >> state of New-Zealand or will they be first extradited to the US under >> international cooperation and then the case brought forward to the IG >> body for shutting down the IPR infringing websites? Or will interpole >> be this IG bodies safe guard for law enforcement and which system of >> international law treaty does interpole follow to be part of this >> system. > > I guess I don't quite grasp the connection you're making here.  We're talking about whether oversight refers to the NTIA functions, some broader and centralized multilateral policy making body, or just compliance with international law.  What has that got to do with US IPR law and US-NZ mutual legal assistance treaties?  Are you suggesting that there should be a UN body able to supersede national and bilateral laws? >> >> The suggestions look good on paper but are not the least bit >> practical. > > Which suggestions? > >> The IGF? Just another definition of the word impractical. >> As for ICANN, it will create trouble for itself with the kind of >> shenanigans its pulling off as it is clearly an example of politics in >> the buffer zone. > > Geez, you spent years flying around the world on IGF's and ICANN's dimes and you think they're both useless?   Can they get refunds? Just kidding :o) > > Seriously, what are you saying about oversight, that you'd favor something along the lines of BRICSA*/G77? > > Cheers > > Bill > > PS: *recognizing there are real variations here, e.g. RCSA favoring ITU, BI favoring more multistakeholder models, etc. > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Parminder >>> >>> On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday 02 June 2012 08:08 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> >>> Without wanting to get between you and Milton when you two are having so >>> much fun, this really caught my eye.  From WSIS Phase I to the CIRP >>> proposal, "oversight" has been equated by its proponents with authoritative >>> policy/decision making by an intergovernmental body. >>> >>> >>> Hi Bill >>> >>> You are welcome to partake of the fun. >>> >>> >>> Whoopee! >>> >>> >>> Ok, on to substantive matters. >>> >>> US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a >>> vis ICANN. >>> >>> >>> Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and >>> light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been >>> variously described by some G77 & China governments. >>> >>> WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the >>> role played by US Dept of Commerce. >>> >>> >>> Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen >>> government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate.  If >>> you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA >>> functions. >>> >>> Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that >>> would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and >>> *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of >>> IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. >>> * set policies on international public policy and coordination for >>> other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, cybersecurity >>> and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by other >>> existing intergovernmental organizations. >>> *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on >>> Internet-related public policies. >>> *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the broader >>> Internet agenda, including but not limited to >>> capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based international >>> interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. >>> *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and conduct >>> arbitration, as required. >>> >>> Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council (IIC) >>> that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and >>> engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined. >>> >>> Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council with >>> broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in observer >>> roles.  Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the USG roles, It >>> would exercise oversight of a new World Internet Corporation for Assigned >>> Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the United Nations. >>> >>> And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the accompanying >>> but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager that wasn't released >>> as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the views in the group. >>> >>> In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS >>> discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially beyond >>> the scope of the NTIA/USG role.  And unquestionably, substantially beyond >>> just 'ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty.' >>>  Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, via intergovernmental >>> negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in some sort of observer/advisory >>> role. >>> >>> >>> Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? If so, >>> yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an arms- length >>> role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional conditions, adherence to >>> clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. (That US does not have such >>> instruments is a defect in the system.) I dont think who does oversight >>> should impact the meaning of what oversight is. >>> >>> >>> Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear.  NTIA/USG exercises >>> one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate (and BTW, does >>> so in constant communication with other governments, and increasingly tries >>> to channel their concerns when badgering the ICANN board).  Those countries >>> that have advocated international oversight—BRICSA and some other upper >>> income G77 and China members—have consistently advocated another version >>> that'd have a much broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper >>> either than what NTIA does or what you're saying now. >>> >>> >>>  In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also spoke of >>> transferring oversight  from the USG to an intergovernmental body. >>> >>> >>> This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to divert >>> from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) >>> >>> >>> My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical >>> governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and >>> logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be >>> transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral >>> body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical >>> governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in >>> the technical governance systems are certainly needed.)  So ok, you said >>> multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. >>> And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, >>> which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does. >>> >>> >>>  Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means ensuring >>> adherence to international law established by a treaty? >>> >>> >>> Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a recent >>> change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. >>> >>> >>> I'm having trouble squaring the two.  NTIA functions + broader global policy >>> making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly broader than >>> just ensuring adherence to international law... >>> >>> >>>  If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be watered. >>> >>> >>> That is really welcome. >>> >>> >>> No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... >>> >>> >>>  I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there could be >>> alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global Affirmation of Commitments >>> on zone file authorizations... >>> >>> >>> I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you please >>> explain. >>> >>> >>> Do you mean this in some rhetorical way?  I'm sure you're familiar with the >>> AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase compliance with >>> it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc >>> >>> Among whom would these AoCs  be made? Are these unilateral declarations of >>> good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see how that would do. But >>> ready to discuss. >>> >>> >>> While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the >>> commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say "the >>> community" to avoid annoying you ;-).  Imagine an ICANN in which the NTIA >>> role evolves toward progressively greater minimalism--and if/when things are >>> clearly be done properly and jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and >>> ICANN becomes fully independent, with a host country agreement somewhere >>> "appropriate."  And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps >>> including actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN.  For example, it >>> swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in times >>> of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US would do even >>> now...).  And so on. >>> >>> >>> (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of success >>> in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a treaty is the >>> right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take the cover of >>> pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term chance of all countries >>> adhering to human rights, or of eradication of poverty. However we do make >>> our positions about which way the world and its insitutions should go >>> independent of such assessment. Our constitution writers wrote those lofty >>> ideals and built institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) >>> >>> >>> I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. >>> >>> My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on nudity, >>> why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional options than >>> just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating intergovernmental >>> agreements?  Why not focus first on what needs to be done, and consider the >>> range of possible forms that might help do it, especially if some are less >>> likely to meet immediate political resistance?  Why not do campaigns around >>> specific issues, and make better use of the IGF? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jun 3 09:55:08 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:55:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <458B3BCE-7196-43A4-BAAD-4981DDDDEA90@uzh.ch> Hi Thanks for clarifying. One question: On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The ITU > executive team was in Pakistan recently and lobbying to gain support > for upcoming WCITs and we should start worrying about that Is there anything written on this specifically, the URL you sent says Zardari and Toure met and talked about other initiatives. 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 10:18:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:18:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: lots of things to chew on here, but I will just choose this one gristly example for now: On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Diplomacy has its twists and turns. > > It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website Seriously? After all of the "capacity building" you have been thru on IG? And you hold yourself out as an "expert" on IG and still spout this mythical nonsense?? ICANN is several layers removed from the DNS entries of "any website", nor do they have any power to shut down any hosts (besides their own hosts of course). , be > it american or from some other country. Ask NTIA about it and we will > get a lame response totally out of scope from the question. No, no one > outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical > internet resources. more nonsensical myth spewing. :-/ -- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jun 3 10:38:12 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:38:12 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: <00df01cd4196$85e06d30$91a14790$@uol.com.br> Totally agree with Avri too. ITU has a relevant part in telecommunications around the word, so shall have, as well other interested parts, a voice in the internet governance, what we cannot agree is to leave the civil society without a less voice than all other stakeholders controlled by governments. Civil society is so large that their voice shall have a preponderant participation on this governance to guarantee the different voices CS has to be heard. Relating to you question Izumi, from my point of view, we only regret from things that we do not have done. Even if mistakes can be made in the process, better than do nothing to prove your point. We had last Friday a very interesting vote, from the Tribunal that controls the government accountability to the public, about the Nic.br and its multistakeholder Board ( unhappily in Portuguese, but if someone wants to read I will be please to send it) but the concludes ( free translation): " -----Mensagem original----- De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: sexta-feira, 1 de junho de 2012 19:44 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Assunto: Re: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk I very much agree with Avri's idea expressed here. That gives me a question, as a co-coordinator. Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, statement, in time? Do we have consensus, or any person to lead that? If we do not start early enough, I guess, we may be consumed by IGF in Baku, etc, and then by the time we notice this, it could be too late, I am afraid. izumi 2012/6/1 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: > > - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy > - participate and stop something from happening > > While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications.   Or even that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic modalities on Internet Governance.  they too get a voice. > > And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of that voice. > > So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. > > I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation seem like capitulation to their power grab.  So for any civil society group that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating becomes critical. > > avri > > > > > On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: > >> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >> >> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >> >> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent oversight body is legitimate. >> >> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >> >> The phrase in this text,  "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game would be over before it even got started. >> >> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom >> Committee >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein >> To: governance >> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >> To: Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its plans public! >> >> Michael, >> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >> >> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet users a seat at the table. >> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and participate in a global community. >> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive manner. >> >> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's future by signing the petition below. >> In solidarity, >> The Access Team >> For more information: >> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT ITU >> Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet Hey ITU Member States: >> No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jun 3 10:41:32 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:41:32 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: <00e001cd4197$02608700$07219500$@uol.com.br> Continuing free translation. From previous email... "It would be a setback for the system that has been successfully operated by CGI.br and NIC.br ( multistakeholder board) by such a radical change ( be controlled by government) and, I believe, would not lead to satisfactory results for society. More, it could bring too much bureaucracy, increased costs and interference, then yes, of all kinds, totally undesirable for the process and for the entire society - is the tribunal vote". Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Dissemine esta idéia: Digite o dominio ao inves do telefone. Domain dialing   www.siter.com   -----Mensagem original----- De: Vanda UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] Enviada em: domingo, 3 de junho de 2012 11:38 Para: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'Avri Doria' Assunto: RES: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk Totally agree with Avri too. ITU has a relevant part in telecommunications around the word, so shall have, as well other interested parts, a voice in the internet governance, what we cannot agree is to leave the civil society without a less voice than all other stakeholders controlled by governments. Civil society is so large that their voice shall have a preponderant participation on this governance to guarantee the different voices CS has to be heard. Relating to you question Izumi, from my point of view, we only regret from things that we do not have done. Even if mistakes can be made in the process, better than do nothing to prove your point. We had last Friday a very interesting vote, from the Tribunal that controls the government accountability to the public, about the Nic.br and its multistakeholder Board ( unhappily in Portuguese, but if someone wants to read I will be please to send it) but the concludes ( free translation): " -----Mensagem original----- De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU Enviada em: sexta-feira, 1 de junho de 2012 19:44 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Assunto: Re: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk I very much agree with Avri's idea expressed here. That gives me a question, as a co-coordinator. Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, statement, in time? Do we have consensus, or any person to lead that? If we do not start early enough, I guess, we may be consumed by IGF in Baku, etc, and then by the time we notice this, it could be too late, I am afraid. izumi 2012/6/1 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: > > - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy > - participate and stop something from happening > > While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications.   Or even that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic modalities on Internet Governance.  they too get a voice. > > And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of that voice. > > So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. > > I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation seem like capitulation to their power grab.  So for any civil society group that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating becomes critical. > > avri > > > > > On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: > >> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >> >> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >> >> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent oversight body is legitimate. >> >> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >> >> The phrase in this text,  "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game would be over before it even got started. >> >> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom >> Committee >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein >> To: governance >> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >> To: Michael Gurstein >> Subject: Our internet is at risk >> >> >> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its plans public! >> >> Michael, >> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >> >> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet users a seat at the table. >> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and participate in a global community. >> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive manner. >> >> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's future by signing the petition below. >> In solidarity, >> The Access Team >> For more information: >> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT ITU >> Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet Hey ITU Member States: >> No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals 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 >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jun 3 10:42:50 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:42:50 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] Cyberconflict Conference Tallin In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE17@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCDEC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FC8A4D9.9080501@itforchange.net> <4FC8B15C.6070604@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EB302@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F3E7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8CF0E5FE9D2939E-2160-D032@webmail-d156.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE17@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00e101cd4197$2c9baf40$85d30dc0$@uol.com.br> For sure Wolfgang! -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Enviada em: sábado, 2 de junho de 2012 05:39 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] Cyberconflict Conference Tallin FYI http://www.ccdcoe.org/cycon/3.html Wouldn´t this also a good subject for the IGF in Baku? 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 jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jun 3 11:40:40 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:40:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Regarding IPv6 In-Reply-To: <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> References: <48934C9A-BC6D-4720-9D29-8B8444D2F07A@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE03361091E2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <41AEEB8F-EE5B-4578-89A2-AFCEB3E694E7@acm.org> <4D4DCDBD.506@communisphere.com> <25C5BF2D-60B4-4403-929C-A479900C6924@acm.org> Message-ID: <4C2E7A0A-9063-4A10-8699-D52F368040F4@istaff.org> On Feb 6, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Apologies for the belated reply... this list has a very respectable volume and my duties prevent me from always keeping up in real-time. I'll respond to your post on IPv6 just for clarity, and perhaps come back to merits of the IETF system as a governance model separately. > I have not researched it, just lived through it, especially in the years of the IETF. I have been following, and participating at times, from the time the IPng issue got started. Myself as well. Disclosure: I served as an IETF Area Director for the Operations and Network Management area and served as one of the 15 members of the IETF IPng Directorate. > I have not written anything on it, though it may be an idea to do so someday, though there are so many things I would like to write someday when I not longer have to spend most of my time writing governance feuilletons for a living. Not likely, but a nice thought - I have so many things I never finished writing. I think we all have a long list of future projects like this (although I do encourage you to move this higher up on your list... :-) > Some of the chapters might include: > > - the story starts with requirement that were ignored when the beauty contest picked the winner. and the fact that the winner was picked before it was time and the work was complete on the candidates due to political pressure to have a solution now. After in 1994 all the best people already knew that all IPv4 was going to die in a year or so. I agree with the majority of the above (IPng was decided before all of the important development work was completed, and hence some of the requirements, e.g. transition, were left as future work), but I would take exception with the "all the best people already knew that all IPv4 was going to die in a year or so." While IPng development was initiated as a result the various IPv4 runout analyses, I believe that it was well-understood most of those involved that fully developing a new version of the Internet protocol was going to take years; i.e. we were worried about dates and overall runout events out that were forecast out beyond 2010. It is true at that time that we also knew that there was an imminent runout of class-B address blocks (potentially within 1 year) but that was going to be addressed with the concurrent activity of quickly deploying support for Classless InterDomain Routing (CIDR) across the Internet, i.e. I do not of anyone who thought of the potential runout of those blocks was any form of motivation for making an IPng decision "quickly". I'll also note that at the time, there were complaints that the decision process seemed quite slow i.e. IETF direction on various network protocol documents usually takes two or three meetings, i.e. one year, and yet by 1994 work on various new version of IP had been going on for over two years without convergence. > - It includes the inability of anyone to get people to commit to fixing the routing architecutre while going through the pain of changing the address structure. This even though there were candidate solution that included routing architecture considerations. Many of us believe that architecture and addressing must always be worked on together. Agreed. > - it includes a very strange tale of the inability of some very smart people to persuade anyone to include the notion of variable size addresses, or at least fixed addresses that allowed for IPv4 encapsulation. Also agreed. Please find me at a bar someday regarding this topic; I will spare this list my rantings. > - It goes through at least a decade of hubris where IPv6 was going to replace IPv4 any day now and the elite of IPv6 drank very expensive scotch to toast to the universal deployment of IPv6 (the fact that they drank Scotch instead of Irish was already a good clue that something was very wrong) Anyone who thought IPv6 was going to deploy itself prior to the actual IPv4 full depletion was quite confused, as we included no features to distinguish IPv6 over IPv4 and thus create inherent motivation to deploy. In 1994, I strongly noted this concern in my requirements paper to the IPng Directorate (i.e. RFC 1669). > - It includes years of miscalculation that IPv4 was the walking dead so there was no reason to think about coexistence. Mostly agreed; I'd have phrased it slightly differently, i.e. "years of miscalculation that the installed base of IPv4 plus 'imminent' IPv6 deployment precluded updating IPv4 to allow for incremental deployment and coexistence." > - it would include chapters of how CIDR and NAT saved IPv4. CIDR and NAT only delay the IPv4's terminal sentence... there are still serious problems with trying to make IPv4 continue to work on the scale of the Internet today, and they are about to get much, much worse. > - it would discuss the economics of IP addresses and the fact that even though the need to have strict hierarchy is no longer that great, a free market in IP addresses is still prohibited. I could write an entire book on this topic, but the short answer is that there's nothing preventing a free market in IP addresses except the ISP community itself, we have a very successful limited market today, and we seem to have increasing movement towards more relaxed market constraints. > - it would discuss the sacred cow legacy IPv4 address blocks and the multicast blocks that have never really been exploited. Yes, another case of miscalculation that "that the installed base of IPv4 plus 'imminent' IPv6 deployment precluded updating IPv4 to allow maximize usability of the entire IPv4 space. > - it would discuss the new reality where we need to support 2 protocol stacks and the routing infrastructure to support those 2 protocols. We no longer have one Internet, we have 2 Internets that exist side by side, but are separate universes. Good for router hardware sales, but not really an optimal solution. Agreed (and it's actually worse than that, since there's also the costs and overhead resulting from the addition of various broken translation solutions between the two.) > - it would discuss that in the future, while there will be IPv6 in the network, there will be IPv4 for most of our lifetimes. The routing architecture is still a disaster, and there will be many new solutions to keep IPv4 going, so that unless vendors switch over based on political pressure, many of us will continue to use IPv4 for a very long time to come. IPv4 will be with us for a long-time, just as there are indeed folks still running SNA and X.25 even today. As long as new customers can be connected up via IPv6 and have a functional Internet, I'll claim that IPv6 still meets an important goal. We are now seeing very serious engineering efforts underway by carriers (both residential and mobile) to connect customers to the Internet via IPv6, as is expected now that IPv4 depletion is actually upon us. > As I said, IPv6 has come far enough so it will probably survive - I used to believe that could/should never happen but I long ago gave up fighting it. But as we celebrate its alleged ascendancy, I just wanted to point out the sad path we took to get to this point and warn that we should not expect IPv6 to be the last address solution, nor should we expect that it will be an easy road ahead. The road is not easy, but IPv4's 4.3 billion addresses doesn't adequately meet the needs of 7 Billion people, as each becomes more Internet connected at home, at work, and while mobile... The enormous growth in online services, including games, search, chat, publishing, etc. also results in vast server farms which require unique addressing. > Me, I am still trying to figure out how to route on names and to avoid bothering with psuedo-numbers (aka IP addresses) anyway - why translate from one name type to another? Given that routing is getting less hierarchical all the time, these numerical names may someday be an anachronism of the past. But this is a governance list and not technical research speculation list, so that was probably off topic. :-) > And I apologize for being an IPv6 heretic and a party pooper. Avri - I would call it being "an IPv6 realist"... I am not very far apart in my perspective, but do see (finally) that IPv6 is actively being sought as a solution by service providers at this point in time, as the alternative approach to adding customers via carrier grade NAT and IPv4 kludges is far less appealing. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My personal views alone. No global namespaces were harmed in the creation of this message. Attempting to maintain all global state locally may result in excessive stress or fatigue, and should not without first consulting a physician. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 14:09:28 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:09:28 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The personalization amuses me and so does the ignorance. No wonder we in the developing world have come to realize this. Fouad Bajwa On Jun 3, 2012 7:19 PM, "McTim" wrote: > lots of things to chew on here, but I will just choose this one > gristly example for now: > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Diplomacy has its twists and turns. > > > > It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website > > Seriously? After all of the "capacity building" you have been thru on > IG? And you hold yourself out as an > "expert" on IG and still spout this mythical nonsense?? > > ICANN is several layers removed from the DNS entries of "any website", > nor do they have > any power to shut down any hosts (besides their own hosts of course). > > > > > > > , be > > it american or from some other country. Ask NTIA about it and we will > > get a lame response totally out of scope from the question. No, no one > > outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical > > internet resources. > > more nonsensical myth spewing. :-/ > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 14:15:11 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:15:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <458B3BCE-7196-43A4-BAAD-4981DDDDEA90@uzh.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <458B3BCE-7196-43A4-BAAD-4981DDDDEA90@uzh.ch> Message-ID: There is no recorded info. There wasn't any record of China's lobbying for its GA proposal that I once came to know about. Just a word of caution, don't be astonished if Pakistan and the OIC support Russia and China in ay wcit proposals or IG related issues in the near future. Fouad Bajwa On Jun 3, 2012 6:55 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > Thanks for clarifying. > > One question: > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The ITU > executive team was in Pakistan recently and lobbying to gain support > for upcoming WCITs and we should start worrying about that > > > Is there anything written on this specifically, the URL you sent > says Zardari and Toure met and talked about other initiatives. > > 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 jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jun 3 15:19:48 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:19:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <20120521125844.BC34C1605@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6F57@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120521150150.9B0EE1605@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6FF3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120522075943.5B2DB1605@quill.bollow.ch> <20120522112625.7BEF71605@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4D1F13B0-25A1-468A-8764-66C32270F1C9@istaff.org> On May 22, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I also do not have an analysis, but from 20+ years participation would say the primary reason that capture does not happen is because people would not stand for it. Over time there have been a few occasions when one large company or other tried to ram its favorite solutions through the process. But by the time the various WG and review process had been gone through it it was no longer the solution that the large company tried to ram through. And that is because people review seriously, do a bit of implementation testing, and argue their issues freely. This concurs with my observations of the IETF. Some of the outputs may be less than ideal, but it is generally the result of differing views on a particularly property of a proposed solution (e.g. scaling, or security) as opposed to pedantic defense of a broken proposal. > Another possible reason it works is genuineness in regards to ones opinion. I have often seen the people from the same company arguing with each other in the midst of a public WG meeting over the better path. Just try to imagine two people from a single country or a single organization getting up in a meeting and disagreeing with each other? And yet, that would be a healthy sign in my view of having achieved a bit of maturity in the multistakeholder model The IETF process is about determining the actual merits of a proposed solution, and therefore any input is welcome into the discussion from any source regardless of affiliation. This is reflected in the "you participate as individuals" mantra which is often heard, and noted in the "Internet Standards Process" (RFC 2026/BCP 9) - "They provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all interested parties. At each stage of the standardization process, a specification is repeatedly discussed and its merits debated in open meetings and/or public electronic mailing lists, and it is made available for review via world-wide on-line directories." To Parminder's point ("any governance system excludes any party with conflict of interest, which important norm of democracy and public life gets over-ridden by your 'on equal footing' proposition."), it is indeed true the IETF allows input from all parties, and in fact, it is expected that knowledgable people, even if working for companies which could be considered interested parties, are going to be heavily involved in the discussion of the merits of a given proposal. This is considered acceptable because the particular viewpoint of a participant isn't actually taken as input, it is instead their reasoning behind the viewpoint that is being sought so that those who disagree can readily discern why they agree or disagree on the merits of the proposal... as long as the participants are intellectually forthright in their participation, and take the time to explain their reasoning, it is considered helpful to the process. > Often people say that the IETF formula only works because it is dealing with technical subjects but that it would not work in the policy area. I think this argument is unproven and I don't beleive it. I think people assume there is just one correct technological solution, but this is never the case. There are many tradeoffs that must be made a long the way to a possible technical solution and the outcome is by no means fated to a single possible solution. I think the technical solution space and the policy solution space are not inherently dissimilar in character and thus do not accept that it is subject matter that make the IETF formula not work for policy issues. Note that the output of the IETF are voluntary standards, i.e. organizations are free to use or not use these standards or not as they see fit. While it's true that there are sometimes aspects of technical standards that impact the Internet at large, those are quite infrequent and often the participants in the standards process (whether directly in the technical community or other from civil society and government) are present to highlight these public policy issues when they arise. This suffices for technical standards, but might be considered rather weak compared to some other mechanisms if it were extended to public policy development. > The main difference I find between the policy arena and the technical area is the consistency of people's opinions. In technology, for the most part, people beleive in the same technical solutions even after they change jobs. In the policy area, people's views often change when they change jobs. In tech people argue what they personally beleive while in policy people seem to often argue what they are paid to beleive in. In the tech area, one rarely gets a job because they picked one technical solution over another, while in policy who you agree with determines who you work for and for many people this means conforming their views to their potential employers. I believe that the open, multistakeholder participation model of the IETF works quite well, and it may be possible to extend with success into pubic policy development. However, such extension has some strong prerequisites, and I am uncertain if they can be really be achieved in the public policy area: - Parties willingness to explain the actual basis behind their position, including their assumptions, reasoning, and expected outcome. - Actively following the discussion, realizing that the discussion itself is the most valuable part of the process in bringing people to common outcome. - Parties willingness to truly consider and change positions based the reasoning heard from others All of the above also requires direct participation (as opposed to some form of representative participation) and that alone may be a major hinderance to effective use of the IETF-like model for public policy development. As industry trade associations, these structures serve very well, but if the outputs are to become mandatory on other parties, then we really speaking of "governance" and that usually has more formal and structured opportunities for those affected (even indirectly) to be heard. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 3 15:32:47 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:32:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> Hi, I hesitate to intrude here (being new to the list, so I'm sure I'm missing some context), but: On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website, be > it american or from some other country. Technically, this is incorrect. There is no mechanism, even theoretical, by which ICANN could unilaterally shut down a website (well, other than their own of course) be it demanded by judicial order or not. Or are you suggesting there is the perception by the "ignorant" and that ICANN can do this and that "they will learn"? > no one > outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical > internet resources. Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What are "critical internet resources" over which people within US borders have control and those outside don't? 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jun 3 16:19:16 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:19:16 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> Dear David, you right, ICANN has no such power and wherever is will be located I don´t believe ICANN will have such power, with or without judicial order. Critical internet resources was a term used by the first movement in the IGF to define mostly addresses, though the reality is wider under the civil society interpretation, since telecommunications for instance is critical, electricity is also critical... and other not tangible issues as human rights and similar .. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Dissemine esta idéia: Digite o dominio ao inves do telefone. Domain dialing   www.siter.com   -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad Enviada em: domingo, 3 de junho de 2012 16:33 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Hi, I hesitate to intrude here (being new to the list, so I'm sure I'm missing some context), but: On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website, be > it american or from some other country. Technically, this is incorrect. There is no mechanism, even theoretical, by which ICANN could unilaterally shut down a website (well, other than their own of course) be it demanded by judicial order or not. Or are you suggesting there is the perception by the "ignorant" and that ICANN can do this and that "they will learn"? > no one > outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical > internet resources. Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What are "critical internet resources" over which people within US borders have control and those outside don't? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 16:31:05 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:31:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Hi, Let me reword this. ICANN stakeholders have to take down domains. Ref: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/02042717920/why-isnt-icann-speaking-out-against-icedoj-domain-seizures.shtml why, because ICANN falls under California Law or simply put US jurisdiction: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/us-govt-claims-right-to-seize-any-com-domain/ Ignorance is what it is. IGF was established to address Internet Public Policy related issues and thats what its doing isn't it and aren't we expecting too much from it to do oversight functions, what, when, how, why? It can't do those. ICANN is second party Internet space manager under a contract with NTIA, under US law jurisdiction, and should some other group or body be capable may be able to apply to future NTIA RFPs for managing the Internet address space. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order IGF and ICANN, not going to exist long. IGF has a date for its mandate, ICANN has a limitation of contract with the US govt, non-multilateral or non-treaty nature and is merely a political bufferzone in between the IANA function and rest of the world. What is needed here is new thinking as new as the innovation that happens along the lines of the Internet today. and please, stop twisting my words. ignorance is in the high expectations with these weak institutions, not as ignorance as individuals. Fouad On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 12:32 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Hi, > > I hesitate to intrude here (being new to the list, so I'm sure I'm missing some context), but: > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website, be >> it american or from some other country. > > Technically, this is incorrect. There is no mechanism, even theoretical, by which ICANN could unilaterally shut down a website (well, other than their own of course) be it demanded by judicial order or not. Or are you suggesting there is the perception by the "ignorant" and that ICANN can do this and that "they will learn"? > >> no one >> outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical >> internet resources. > > Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What are "critical internet resources" over which people within US borders have control and those outside don't? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 3 16:35:32 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:32 -0700 Subject: RES: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Vanda, On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:19 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear David, you right, ICANN has no such power and wherever is will be > located I don´t believe ICANN will have such power, with or without judicial > order. Right. More to the point, the way the root of the DNS works, there is no single entity that has sufficient control to "shut down any website" from the root which is the only thing ICANN (through the IANA functions contract) can influence. > Critical internet resources was a term used by the first movement in the > IGF to define mostly addresses, though the reality is wider under the civil > society interpretation, since telecommunications for instance is critical, > electricity is also critical... and other not tangible issues as human > rights and similar .. OK, but with either the original or the expanded definition, the assertion "no one outside US bo[r]ders has any control over their critical internet resources" still doesn't make sense to me. The statement implies that folks within US borders do have control which obviously isn't accurate. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Jun 3 16:49:03 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:49:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Going back to an earlier discussion and announcement by ICANN that it was not party to domain name seizures, verisign was, who does verisign signs its contracts with? Isn't ICANN partially a member of that process? Did ICANN step into protect the rights of the domains that its stakeholder is distributing? Do read the comments by the readers at the end of the post. http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/ And here is a list of websites pulled down in lieu of season's sales in the US last year. I wonder how many governments were consulted on this matter at ICANN or with its stakeholders and made public before the action was taken or is it that this authority doesn't have to consult any stakeholder? Oh no one indeed since its a US IPR issue and no one else has anything to do with their jurisdiction? http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1111/111128washingtondc.htm List of domains seized http://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/domain_names.pdf ICANN is weak and I don't believe in weak institutions. I live in a country full of them. The beauty of this discussion is that it will go on and on...... var$ Foo = "foodafied"; On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: >  Dear David,   you right, ICANN has no such power and wherever is will be > located I don´t believe ICANN will have such power, with or without judicial > order. > Critical internet resources was a term used by  the first movement in the > IGF to define mostly addresses, though the reality is wider  under the civil > society interpretation, since telecommunications for instance is critical, > electricity is also  critical... and  other not tangible issues as human > rights and similar .. > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 > 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > Dissemine esta idéia: > Digite o dominio ao inves do telefone. > Domain dialing >   www.siter.com > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad > Enviada em: domingo, 3 de junho de 2012 16:33 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" > > Hi, > > I hesitate to intrude here (being new to the list, so I'm sure I'm missing > some context), but: > > On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website, be >> it american or from some other country. > > Technically, this is incorrect. There is no mechanism, even theoretical, by > which ICANN could unilaterally shut down a website (well, other than their > own of course) be it demanded by judicial order or not. Or are you > suggesting there is the perception by the "ignorant" and that ICANN can do > this and that "they will learn"? > >> no one >> outside the US boders has any kind of control over their critical >> internet resources. > > Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What are "critical internet > resources" over which people within US borders have control and those > outside don't? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 16:59:40 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:59:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <00e001cd4197$02608700$07219500$@uol.com.br> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <00e001cd4197$02608700$07219500$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: The following article from last year is worth visiting where Ambassador David A Gross and Ethan Lucarelli of Wiley Rein LLP discuss the effects of the renegotiated UN International Telecommunication Regulations.: http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29378/the-2012-world-conference-international-telecommunications-brewing-storm-potential-un-regulation-internet/ There is a propaganda strategy used in online diplomacy activities whereas a great deal of noise is created and information is generated and passed around online that it helps people's minds be prepared for anything positive or negative. Thats the feeling that is coming out of the ITU WCIT rhetoric online. I wonder if this outcry will create an expectation that expect anything from the WCIT event in Dubai and as I mentioned elsewhere, ITU official's sudden tour around Asia was interesting and especially to my country where we are in a deep socio-political and economic-energy crisis Foo! On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Continuing free translation. From previous email... > > "It would be a setback for the system that has been successfully operated by > CGI.br  and NIC.br ( multistakeholder board)  by such a radical change ( be > controlled by government)  and, I believe, would not lead to satisfactory > results for society. More,  it could bring too much bureaucracy, increased > costs and interference, then yes, of all kinds, totally undesirable for the > process and for the entire society - is the tribunal vote". > > > > Vanda Scartezini > Polo Consultores Associados > IT Trend > Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 > 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > Mob + 55118181.1464 > Dissemine esta idéia: > Digite o dominio ao inves do telefone. > Domain dialing >   www.siter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Vanda UOL [mailto:vanda at uol.com.br] > Enviada em: domingo, 3 de junho de 2012 11:38 > Para: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'Avri Doria' > Assunto: RES: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk > > Totally agree with Avri too. ITU has a relevant part in telecommunications > around the word, so shall have, as well other interested parts, a voice in > the internet governance, what we cannot agree is to leave the civil society > without a less voice than all other stakeholders controlled by  governments. > Civil society is so large that their voice shall have a preponderant > participation on this governance to  guarantee the different voices CS has > to be heard. >  Relating to you question Izumi, from my point of view, we only regret from > things that we do not have done. Even if mistakes  can be made in the > process, better than do nothing to prove your point. > We had last Friday a very interesting  vote, from the Tribunal that controls > the government accountability to the public, about the Nic.br and its > multistakeholder  Board ( unhappily in Portuguese, but  if someone wants to > read I will be please to send it) but the concludes ( free translation): > " > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 1 de junho de 2012 19:44 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Assunto: Re: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk > > I very much agree with Avri's idea expressed here. > That gives me a question, as a co-coordinator. > > Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, > statement, in time? > > Do we have consensus, or any person to lead that? > > If we do not start early enough, I guess, we may be consumed by IGF in Baku, > etc, and then by the time we notice this, it could be too late, I am afraid. > > izumi > > > > 2012/6/1 Avri Doria : >> Hi, >> >> I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: >> >> - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy >> - participate and stop something from happening >> >> While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not > quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications.   Or even > that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic > modalities on Internet Governance.  they too get a voice. >> >> And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of > that voice. >> >> So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT > deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. >> >> I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation > seem like capitulation to their power grab.  So for any civil society group > that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating > becomes critical. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: >> >>> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >>> >>> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or > need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >>> >>> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes > beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent > oversight body is legitimate. >>> >>> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking > to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a > recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >>> >>> The phrase in this text,  "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU > negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game > would be over before it even got started. >>> >>> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom >>> Committee >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: michael gurstein >>> To: governance >>> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >>> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >>> To: Michael Gurstein >>> Subject: Our internet is at risk >>> >>> >>> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a > closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the > ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its > plans public! >>> >>> Michael, >>> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, > decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >>> >>> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing > to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the > International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules > on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't > even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet > users a seat at the table. >>> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change > that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only > governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >>> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public > and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >>> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call > upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder > governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access > sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and > participate in a global community. >>> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, > and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control > over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your > privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >>> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum > management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding > its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including > an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that > it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive > manner. >>> >>> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a > letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV > (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part > of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >>> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the > internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's > future by signing the petition below. >>> In solidarity, >>> The Access Team >>> For more information: >>> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT ITU >>> Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet Hey ITU Member States: >>> No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals 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 >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 3 18:27:44 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:27:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> Fouad, On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Let me reword this. ICANN stakeholders have to take down domains. > [bodog.com takedown by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] > why, because ICANN falls under California Law or simply put US jurisdiction: It doesn't matter what law ICANN falls under. As you're aware, the .COM top-level domain is operated by Verisign, a US corporation. Verisign obviously must abide by US law. I presume the Verisign lawyers ensured the takedown request(s) made by US ICE were lawful. While it is true that ICANN and Verisign have entered into a contract regarding the operation of .COM, that is irrelevant. ICANN has no control over the content of the .COM zone (or any other zone, other than the ones it operates like icann.org of course). Technically, because of the way the DNS operates, there is simply nothing ICANN can unilaterally do about these situations (for good or ill), regardless of what legal venue or law (or treaty or whatever) ICANN or any possible successor operates in. It is unfortunate that this is not better understood. > Ignorance is what it is. Sorry, ignorance of what and on whose part? > ICANN is second party Internet space manager under a contract with > NTIA, under US law jurisdiction, and should some other group or body > be capable may be able to apply to future NTIA RFPs for managing the > Internet address space. > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order To my understanding, a number of other parties did bid on the IANA functions contract before the RFP was cancelled. However, it appears you're co-mingling activities that pains have been taken (particularly with the rebid of the IANA functions contract) to separate. The operation of the IANA functions is explicitly disallowed from participation in the setting of policy (see section C.2.5 of the RFP). The operator of the IANA functions (whoever it might be) is/will be contractually obligated to implement policies created by "interested and affected parties" (a term defined in section C.1.3 of that same document) and nothing else. The setting of that policy is not part of any contract with NTIA. > and please, stop twisting my words. ignorance is in the high > expectations with these weak institutions, not as ignorance as > individuals. I'm confused as to how pointing out a technical inaccuracy and asking for clarification could be interpreted as twisting your words. 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 jcurran at istaff.org Sun Jun 3 18:37:42 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:37:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <48EEA8B7-079D-4561-AC94-EFFA506BE687@istaff.org> On Jun 3, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Going back to an earlier discussion and announcement by ICANN that it > was not party to domain name seizures, verisign was, who does verisign > signs its contracts with? Isn't ICANN partially a member of that > process? Did ICANN step into protect the rights of the domains that > its stakeholder is distributing? Do read the comments by the readers > at the end of the post. > > http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn%E2%80%99t-take-down-websites/ Fouad - Yes, it does appear that the US government impacted domain names based on certain law enforcement activities. It appears also that the action was effected by some form of legal orders to Verisign, which is located within the US. Such orders pose significant issues when they amount to actions against infrastructure for purposes of content control, and doubly so when they impact parties are outside of the legal jurisdiction doing the ordering. I don't think there are many in the Internet governance community who aren't concerned with the above, although some would carve out allowing enforcement actions against infrastructure for aiding of their favorite cause (copyright protection, preventing child exploitation, pursuing anti-terrorism, etc.), and either with or without judicial review... However, none of this is related to ICANN, in that you could have replaced ICANN with "World_DNS_NGO" and put it under a contract issued by a hypothetical Internet Power Union (a new multilateral treaty organization), and that would not have altered the outcome in the slightest... US law enforcement would still have issued an order to a US company to perform takedowns of certain DNS names. To suggest that ICANN has some fault here is to ascribe to ICANN some very serious duties, i.e. that ICANN must somehow to be able to prevent a government from engaging in its own perceived lawful enforcement actions against organizations within its own borders. > And here is a list of websites pulled down in lieu of season's sales > in the US last year. I wonder how many governments were consulted on > this matter at ICANN or with its stakeholders and made public before > the action was taken or is it that this authority doesn't have to > consult any stakeholder? Oh no one indeed since its a US IPR issue and > no one else has anything to do with their jurisdiction? Again, your issue is that (in general) nation states feel that it is acceptable for various reasons to directly impact Internet infrastructure to protect certain policy objectives. Getting governments not to do this at all, or even not to do this for specific reasons (freedom of speech, copyright enforcement, etc.) is a very challenging task and I wish you enormous luck with it; it is, however, a problem which lies far above ICANN's role today of technical coordination and its particular USG relationship. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. No subpoenas were issued in the preparation of this email. Special notice for attentive governments: the author of this email is unaware of any infringing content, but if found otherwise asks that his message be deleted in preference to domain name seizure of the archive web site... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 19:21:02 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 04:21:02 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <48EEA8B7-079D-4561-AC94-EFFA506BE687@istaff.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> <48EEA8B7-079D-4561-AC94-EFFA506BE687@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM, John Curran wrote: >  Yes, it does appear that the US government impacted domain names >  based on certain law enforcement activities.  It appears also that >  the action was effected by some form of legal orders to Verisign, >  which is located within the US. If ICANN is free after contracting a service to Verisign then does that mean ICANN completely loses its control over a domain name? I would doubt this because Verisign has to ask ICANN for implementing: http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-com-net-name-request-10oct11-en.pdf and the take by TIME magazine on this: http://techland.time.com/2011/10/12/verisign-seeks-authority-to-shut-down-websites-without-court-orders/ >  Such orders pose significant issues >  when they amount to actions against infrastructure for purposes of >  content control, and doubly so when they impact parties are outside >  of the legal jurisdiction doing the ordering. ICANN and Verisign are both corporations registered under US law despite one being a non-profit corporation and the other a commercial one. Since the addressing is being managed in the US, any compliance to law enforcement will be done in the US and thus the unilateral decision to take down exists and that is the argument. >  However, none of this is related to ICANN, in that you could have >  replaced ICANN with "World_DNS_NGO" and put it under a contract >  issued by a hypothetical Internet Power Union (a new multilateral >  treaty organization), and that would not have altered the outcome >  in the slightest...  US law enforcement would still have issued an >  order to a US company to perform takedowns of certain DNS names. >  To suggest that ICANN has some fault here is to ascribe to ICANN >  some very serious duties, i.e. that ICANN must somehow to be able >  to prevent a government from engaging in its own perceived lawful >  enforcement actions against organizations within its own borders. Thats why US based non-profits or custodians of the Internet cannot ensure freedom of expression when it itself is bound to restrictions under a single country's law. Should the need arise, it has the possibility to take action. > >  Again, your issue is that (in general) nation states feel that >  it is acceptable for various reasons to directly impact Internet >  infrastructure to protect certain policy objectives. Unilateralism stands as a threat, will never be comfortable with ICANN being under US law whatever the case and during the wcit's i expect that issue is possibly going to be revisited. >  Getting governments not to do this at all, or even not to do this for >  specific reasons (freedom of speech, copyright enforcement, etc.) >  is a very challenging task and I wish you enormous luck with it; >  it is, however, a problem which lies far above ICANN's role today >  of technical coordination and its particular USG relationship. I sometimes refer to this as the scattered critical resource politics of the Internet (just in case this is not confused with IGF's CIRs). I don't have to be wished luck, things are directed in that way. Once again, I resort back to what I usually recommend to people raising their voice on WCIT's, talk to your government reps, communications ministers, secretaries, regulators and missions to the UN. Thats where the approval mechanisms originate from. Once those countries meet at WCIT, I see more than 50+ countries going for changes to WCITs in terms of Internet governance from one corner of the world to the other. I see them not concerned about what we think, I see them concerned about what has happened in the recent year. Just a small example, this part of the world doesn't see what happened in Libya and Egypt from the eyes of the west despite whatever lobbying or awareness raising is done. For them, its a story the otherside will never understand. Again local circumstances cause a difference of opinion and a different angle to look towards the Internet and its governance. We won't see much of the world playing along soon. New oversight bodies are out of the question but there will be some form of oversight and outside the IGF for sure. If we see anything happening, it will happen within the existing multilateral space and soon. IGF is slowly transitioning into a buffer zone as well between IG and Oversight functions. Look where things are headed. In the past, I've overheard other stakeholders/non-CS during IGFs that let them (us CS people) empty their stomachs and talk their hearts out, next time we can preoccupy them in something else or simply throw topics out of the window. Best Foo > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers:  My views alone. No subpoenas were issued in the preparation > of this email. Special notice for attentive governments: the author of > this email is unaware of any infringing content, but if found otherwise > asks that his message be deleted in preference to domain name seizure of > the archive web site... > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 21:21:23 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:21:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <014301cd41c6$34f369b0$9eda3d10$@uol.com.br> <48EEA8B7-079D-4561-AC94-EFFA506BE687@istaff.org> Message-ID: <89FEA4DE-9E4D-4FFD-BFD3-2D09372F58AA@istaff.org> On Jun 3, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > ICANN and Verisign are both corporations registered under US law > despite one being a non-profit corporation and the other a commercial > one. Since the addressing is being managed in the US, any compliance > to law enforcement will be done in the US and thus the unilateral > decision to take down exists and that is the argument. Please elaborate or restate the above point... I do not understand how it relates to ICANN being involved in law enforcement orders that ICANN never receives. > Thats why US based non-profits or custodians of the Internet cannot > ensure freedom of expression when it itself is bound to restrictions > under a single country's law. Should the need arise, it has the > possibility to take action. Sorry, that is not a US constraint... that's a constraint of any organization operating in any country. If you want to prevent governments from taking certain actions, you'll need to get the governments to collectively agree not to do so. It is possible that such will occur in the future, through any number of initiatives or forums but it has not occurred to date. Until/if you get agreement from governments, then they will continue to act as they see fit for their policy objectives, and that includes actions against the parties in their particular country that operate pieces of the Internet infrastructure. >> Again, your issue is that (in general) nation states feel that >> it is acceptable for various reasons to directly impact Internet >> infrastructure to protect certain policy objectives. > > Unilateralism stands as a threat ... If, by unilateralism, you mean the USG/ICANN relationship, then you are conflating something which is entirely unrelated to the takedowns which occurred, and your statement that "It takes one judicial order to get ICANN to shut down any website" remains inaccurate. We have not seen such an order, nor are we aware how ICANN/DoC would respond to such. Suggesting that ICANN is somehow complicit in the domain name takedowns is sufficiently far from reality that it erodes the strength of your otherwise cogent points. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. A focus on reality-based discussions should not be considered an endorsement of any existing governance structures. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tglassey at certichron.com Sun Jun 3 22:27:42 2012 From: tglassey at certichron.com (Todd Glassey) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:27:42 -0700 Subject: RES: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <00df01cd4196$85e06d30$91a14790$@uol.com.br> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <00df01cd4196$85e06d30$91a14790$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <4FCC1D1E.10801@certichron.com> On 6/3/2012 7:38 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Totally agree with Avri too. ITU has a relevant part in telecommunications > around the word, so shall have, as well other interested parts, a voice in > the internet governance, what we cannot agree is to leave the civil society > without a less voice than all other stakeholders controlled by governments. > Civil society is so large that their voice shall have a preponderant > participation on this governance to guarantee the different voices CS has > to be heard.l. The ITU is a technology standards entity and putting its nose into the politics about what the Internet is and what it provides is probably not terribly smart for them IMHO. T > Relating to you question Izumi, from my point of view, we only regret from > things that we do not have done. Even if mistakes can be made in the > process, better than do nothing to prove your point. > We had last Friday a very interesting vote, from the Tribunal that controls > the government accountability to the public, about the Nic.br and its > multistakeholder Board ( unhappily in Portuguese, but if someone wants to > read I will be please to send it) but the concludes ( free translation): > " > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Em nome de Izumi AIZU > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 1 de junho de 2012 19:44 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Assunto: Re: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk > > I very much agree with Avri's idea expressed here. > That gives me a question, as a co-coordinator. > > Should IGC prepare for WCIT, try to participate and make noise, woops, > statement, in time? > > Do we have consensus, or any person to lead that? > > If we do not start early enough, I guess, we may be consumed by IGF in Baku, > etc, and then by the time we notice this, it could be too late, I am afraid. > > izumi > > > > 2012/6/1 Avri Doria: >> Hi, >> >> I have always had trouble with this dichotomy: >> >> - don't participate to avoid giving legitimacy >> - participate and stop something from happening >> >> While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance, I am not > quite ready to say that the ITU has no role in telecommunications. Or even > that they have no voice in multistakeholder participatory democratic > modalities on Internet Governance. they too get a voice. >> >> And if the ITU has a voice and role, then civil society must be part of > that voice. >> >> So the demand for civil society participation in ITU sectors and in WCIT > deliberations remains an overall good in my mind. >> >> I do understand that ITU would use the press to make any participation > seem like capitulation to their power grab. So for any civil society group > that does particpate, making sure the press knows why you are participating > becomes critical. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 31 May 2012, at 10:46, Koven Ronald wrote: >> >>> From my standpoint. this approach widely misses the point. >>> >>> The ITU should be told to back off because Internet users don't want or > need oversight by a UN agency controlled by its member governments. >>> >>> Telling ITU that we want to be part of its negotiation process concedes > beforehand the idea that the ITU's bid to become the global Interent > oversight body is legitimate. >>> >>> Asking to attend the ITU review meeting is a different matter, but asking > to be included in the negotiating process -- even implicitly -- is a > recognition that such a negotiation is acceptable. >>> >>> The phrase in this text, "Civil society needs a voice in the ITU > negotiations," in effect concedes the point beforehand. It means the game > would be over before it even got started. >>> >>> Bests, Rony Koven, European Representative, World Press Freedom >>> Committee >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: michael gurstein >>> To: governance >>> Sent: Thu, May 31, 2012 4:13 pm >>> Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Access Now [mailto:access at accessnow.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:26 AM >>> To: Michael Gurstein >>> Subject: Our internet is at risk >>> >>> >>> Countries like China and Russia are trying to expand the power of a > closed UN body to give governments more control over the internet. Tell the > ITU we don't want it deciding the future of the internet and to make its > plans public! >>> >>> Michael, >>> The internet we’ve come to know and love -- one that's open, > decentralized, and governed by many stakeholders -- is threatened. >>> >>> Right now, several countries, including China and Russia, are proposing > to expand the powers of a non-transparent global institution, the > International Telecommunication Union (ITU), allowing it to change the rules > on how our internet is used and governed. And what's worse, the ITU won't > even release their negotiating documents to the public or give internet > users a seat at the table. >>> The ITU isn't used to public accountability, but together we can change > that. Let's tell the ITU that we don't want a secretive body where only > governments have a vote deciding the future of our internet! >>> Click here to sign the petition demanding the ITU makes its plans public > and we'll work on delivering the petition at their next planning meeting. >>> The ITU gives every country one vote -- that's why it’s crucial we call > upon our individual governments to support our cause. Multi-stakeholder > governance of the internet is one of the reasons we can so easily access > sites around the world, share with our friends on social networks, and > participate in a global community. >>> Now, with the ITU renegotiating a new treaty this year, China, Russia, > and others are pushing proposals that would give governments greater control > over how you access the internet. Imagine how that might impact your > privacy, security, and freedom of speech online. >>> The ITU has played an important role in telecommunications and spectrum > management and its use for development, but this is not cause for expanding > its mandate. While an evolution of internet governance is needed (including > an examination of the role of the US), it should evolve in the same way that > it was originally designed -- in an open, decentralized, and inclusive > manner. >>> >>> Civil society needs a voice in the ITU negotiations. We've cosigned a > letter with other organizations including the CDT (USA), CIS (India), FGV > (Brazil), EFF (USA), and EIPR (Egypt) urging all stakeholders to be a part > of this process and for the ITU to be transparent in their negotiations. >>> Click here to join us in our call to keep the ITU from regulating the > internet, publicly release its plans, and respect our role in the internet's > future by signing the petition below. >>> In solidarity, >>> The Access Team >>> For more information: >>> Civil Society urges openness, multi-stakeholder process for WCIT ITU >>> Move to Expand Powers Threatens the Internet Hey ITU Member States: >>> No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals 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 >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > -- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 02:33:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:03:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FCC56BB.4070707@itforchange.net> On Sunday 03 June 2012 03:52 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays >> vis a vis ICANN. > > Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited > and light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking > that's been variously described by some G77 & China governments. I have repeatedly said that the US version of what is 'oversight' as you describe it, is what I mean by oversight. So can we proceed ahead with that, rather than you insisting that is not what I mean. We are trying to see here if we/ IGC can agree on some some basic issues of 'enhanced cooperation'. On the other hand, I dont think that most developing countries necessarily ascribe all the public policy work to the 'oversight function' itself, although they may be interested in all the policy stuff apart from the oversight function. In addition, they may also, at this stage, have mostly only thought of the same body doing the two set of functions. I do agree that most proposals for an alternative to the status quo have not been nuanced enough on this count. Which is one reason ITfC is attempting a more nuanced institutional proposal with institutional mechanism for oversight function being rather distinct from any that may be discussed for larger Internet related public policies. I have in my current proposal/ formulation specially sought separation of oversight from other (desirable or not) public policy issues/ functions. Are you against this separation? Why when I am ready to discuss the (narrow) oversight function as separated from other larger policy functions do you insist on conflating them. Do you want to see these two set of functions together? If not, we are both on the same page and can try to move ahead. > >> WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent >> to the role played by US Dept of Commerce. > > Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half > dozen government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is > accurate. Sorry, I know you were on the WGIG but as I read the WGIG report (and also Tunis Agenda) I can clearly make out that it saw 'oversight' function in the narrow sense as I am speaking about rather than the broad sense that you insist it is meant in international talk. > If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the > NTIA functions. If you look at the WGIG report (for those who may want to, it is here ), the four models you speak of are not oversight models (that is the short-hand that gets used often), they are, to quote the section heading, 'global public policy and oversight' models. And some sense of such separation is kept throughout in the section (though of course the two can perhaps never be entirely entirely unconnected). In all the three models that more specifically speak of 'oversight' along with some broader public policy functions, the separation is evident from below quotes I provide. The proposed new Global Internet Council (or a similar body) has a larger set of public policy functions, within which oversight is proposed as a narrow clear set of functions. Quote from Model 1 of WGIG, (only one of the proposed 5 functions is ) providing the necessary oversight relating to Internet resource management, such as additions or deletions to the root zone file, management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. Model 2 doesnt mention the term 'oversight' but the following quote, especially the phrase 'In addition' makes the sense of separation clear ....an International Internet Council (IIC) could fulfil the corresponding functions, especially in relation to ICANN/IANA competencies. ..... In addition, its functions might include international public policy issues relating to ...... Model 4 in fact actually recommends separate bodies for CIR oversight and for broader public policy functions, and so I dont think I need to go into quoting from it. For the casual reader I should make it clear that at this point I am not advocating any of these WGIG models, I am only making the point that the these is sufficiently entreched and wide-spread understanding of 'oversight' as a relatively clear and narrow set of functions, distinct from all kinds of other global Internet related public policy issues. This gives us enough basis for us to proceed on thinking of these functions separately, that is if we indeed want to do so, in suggesting alternatives that better address the concerns and fears of different actors. As I understand, Bill, one of your prime problems is that the two issues of oversight and wider Internet related public policy are normally thrown together, so when I am suggesting we proceed with thinking of them, and the needed institutional responses, separately, why not just come along :) . parminder > > Model 1 was for a intergovernmental Global Internet Council (GIC) that > would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the GAC, and > *set policies on additions or deletions to the root zone file, > management of IP addresses, introduction of gTLDs, delegation and > redelegation of ccTLDs. > * set policies on international public policy and coordination for > other Internet-related key issues, such as spam, privacy, > cybersecurity and cybercrime, which are not being fully addressed by > other existing intergovernmental organizations. > *Facilitate the negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies. > *Foster and provide guidance on certain developmental issues in the > broader Internet agenda, including but not limited to > capacity-building, multilingualism, equitable and cost-based > international interconnection costs, and equitable access for all. > *Approve rules and procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms and > conduct arbitration, as required. > > Model 3 was for an intergovernmental International Internet Council > (IIC) that also would take over the functions of the NTIA, replace the > GAC, and engage in various policy making activities on IG broadly defined. > > Model 4 was for an intergovernmental Global Internet Policy Council > with broad policy roles, with the private sector and civil society in > observer roles. Through an Oversight Committee that'd take over the > USG roles, It would exercise oversight of a new World Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which would be tied to the > United Nations. > > And if you want a fuller sense of what was envisioned, read the > accompanying but mostly forgotten WGIG Background Report, a 76 pager > that wasn't released as a consensus document but compiled a lot of the > views in the group. > > In every case, and throughout the the various WSIS and post-WSIS > discussions, "oversight" has been described as going substantially > beyond the scope of the NTIA/USG role. And unquestionably, > substantially beyond just 'ensuring adherence to international law > established by a treaty.' Proactive, problem solving, broad scope, > via intergovernmental negotiations, with stakeholders varyingly in > some sort of observer/advisory role. > > >> Do you think this is a role of authoritative policy/ decision making? >> If so, yes, 'oversight' is that. Though I see it in the meaning of an >> arms- length role only to ensure, in relatively exceptional >> conditions, adherence to clearly laid-out legal/ policy instruments. >> (That US does not have such instruments is a defect in the system.) I >> dont think who does oversight should impact the meaning of what >> oversight is. > > Maybe not in principle, but in practice…not so clear. NTIA/USG > exercises one version of oversight that is consistent with its mandate > (and BTW, does so in constant communication with other governments, > and increasingly tries to channel their concerns when badgering the > ICANN board). Those countries that have advocated international > oversight—BRICSA and some other upper income G77 and China > members—have consistently advocated another version that'd have a much > broader mandate and is substantively wider and deeper either than what > NTIA does or what you're saying now. >> >>> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also >>> spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to >>> an intergovernmental body. >> >> This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to >> divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) > > My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the > technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical > technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US > government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing > distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in > any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) So ok, you said multilateral rather > than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. And since > improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, > which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA > does. >> >>> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means >>> ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty? >> >> Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a >> recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. > > I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global > policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly > broader than just ensuring adherence to international law... >> >>> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be >>> watered. >> >> That is really welcome. > > No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... >> >>> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there >>> could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global >>> Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations... >> >> I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you >> please explain. > > Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar > with the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase > compliance with it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc > >> Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral >> declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see >> how that would do. But ready to discuss. > > While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the > commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say > "the community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which > the NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater > minimalism--and if/when things are clearly be done properly and > jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully > independent, with a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." > And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps including > actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it > swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in > times of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US > would do even now...). And so on. >> >> (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of >> success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a >> treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take >> the cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term >> chance of all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication >> of poverty. However we do make our positions about which way the >> world and its insitutions should go independent of such assessment. >> Our constitution writers wrote those lofty ideals and built >> institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) > > I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. > > My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on > nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional > options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating > intergovernmental agreements? Why not focus first on what needs to be > done, and consider the range of possible forms that might help do it, > especially if some are less likely to meet immediate political > resistance? Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and make > better use of the IGF? > > Cheers, > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 4 02:51:13 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:21:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FCC5AE1.5040202@itforchange.net> On Sunday 03 June 2012 03:52 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 7:20 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> In a similar vein, the IT4C statement for the CSTD meeting also >>> spoke of transferring oversight from the USG to >>> an intergovernmental body. >> >> This is a misleading reading of ITfCs statement, but I dont want to >> divert from the basic discussion here. (I will comment on it later) > > My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the > technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical > technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US > government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and > participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing > distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in > any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) Lets then get this out of the way, although if you were unclear about certain terms in our joint CS statement if would be best if you asked us what we meant by them rather than 'unilaterally' - and we will have to occasion to comment on the meaning and implication of this term a little later - ascribing them very definitive meaning of your own. You may notice that, first of all, we have separated the institutional model for CIR/tech oversight from that for larger Internet related public policies (aka the work OECDs CCICP does). For the later we propose something within the UN but not for the former, ie not for CIR /tech oversight. This has a clear purpose, and the purpose is elaborated in the tentative proposals we have since been trying to develop at the CSTD meeting and in the last few days in our discussions in the IGC. This separation also takes note of the concerns that Insituto Nupef (carlos' organisation) had with a mixed model within the UN, as proposed by India's CIRP proposal (which you should realise was never ITfC's proposal). In fact, and as I have mentioned in an email a day or two back, the CIR management oversight model suggested by Carlos during the WSIS was clearly in our mind as we drafted these sentences that you quote. BTW, you must not fail to notice that the statement you quote from is co-sponsored by Nupef, along with ITfC and 3 other organisations. And you must give the credit to all these organisations that they know what they are doing. The sentence that you quote was deliberately worded to prepare the way for the kind of proposals that I am putting forward now, where CIR oversight is internationalised through a non UN mechanism, that has larger than inter-gov participative-ness, ie has non gov members. "So ok, you said multilateral rather than intergovernmental, but we know these are synonyms. And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide them, which means broader negotiated decision making than just what the NTIA does". (Bill) Multilateralism, strictly speaking, is the inverse of unilateralism, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism ) and not of multistakeholderism. A few people involved with limited dialogue on global IG cannot themselves completely redefine categories of political philosophy. It is against the 'unilateralism of US' - the principle issue vis a vis CIR oversight - that the term multi-lateral is used in our statement. It means equal involvement of all countries. Yes, that is what we demand. And remember this campaign was primarily aimed at the rather much larger civil society outside the IG realm, where, you would perhaps have noticed, it received huge support in a very short time. The words in the statement were primarily aimed at the understanding of this larger CS ecology, and uses political categories as they use and understand. You would perhaps like to dismiss the 'democratic and participative' part of the statement as of no worthy consequence here. However, we use it to mean the most appropriate participation of stakeholders as relevant to the issue and governance space, and in the case of CIR management we do think that it is appropriate that we dont follow the typical UN membership based model, and the membership of the concerned body has non gov participants, and is perhaps generally made of people who have backing of a larger constituency from the societies they come. (Details and specific to come :) ) Of course you are bristling to ask, but why not use that IG magic word, multistakeholderism. We think what we are proposing is multistakeholder (MS). The last sentence of the relevant para from our joint statement speaks of 'being fully participative of all stakeholders'. For instance, we have always expressed great appreciation for the MS model of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. However, as I have often said on this list, I continue to be apprehensive of what you and other MS adherents on this list, and generally, in the IG space, mean by MSism. For us, for instance, the manner of selecting stakeholder reps is very important, and we have been pushing for clear principles and guidelines for this (for instance at the WG on IGF improvements). We become more than a bit confused when some people ask for equal footing for 'everyone' in 'each and every context', and on being questioned what models are these, how do they work etc, we do not get any clear response. (Remember the recent big discussion on IETF and public policy making on this list.) MSism is the right model for us, if we can ensure specific and strong measures against capture, especially by big business. Despite our best efforts we have not been able to get a discussion on this most important issue vis a vis MSism. It is in this background, that a very large number of global and sub-global NGOs want specific clarifications before they can unconditionally endorse multistakeholder global governance models, especially as they , quite suspiciously, hear discussed in IG spaces. They would like to know what exactly is meant here - what would be the role of, and the interplay among, different actors. (For instance, I would never be able to get a health or 'access to knowledge' NGO to go with an gov arrangement where the rep of a multinational drug company will have the same status as a gov rep. It would simply not work.) This was the context of our joint statement that sought to catch the Interest of global civil society not typically involved with IG but increasingly conscious of, and also concerned about, what is happening in this area. > And since improvements are needed, presumably said body would provide > them, which means broader negotiated decision making than just what > the NTIA does. No, that is not at all what we mean and want. Since the part on needed improvements directly follows one on preserving the present decentralised nature of tech governance, we meant, and, I stress, we mean, that the required improvements would largely come from the existing distributed and bottom up processes. I hope that makes things clear. >> >>> Am I reading correctly that for you, oversight now just means >>> ensuring adherence to international law established by a treaty? >> >> Yes, that is what oversight is to me. And this doesnt represent a >> recent change in position. It was always so for me/ ITfC. > > I'm having trouble squaring the two. NTIA functions + broader global > policy making through a multilateral institutions sounds significantly > broader than just ensuring adherence to international law... I have gone to great lengths to stress that with oversight I mean largely NTIA functions, and the + you put there is not there in my mind and assertion, nor, clearly, is it meant in the joint CS statement. So can we now go ahead with this. parminder >> >>> If so, there might be a few seeds of convergence that could be >>> watered. >> >> That is really welcome. > > No kidding…we've been arguing about this for 8 years now... >>> I'm not terribly optimistic about a treaty negotiation, but there >>> could be alternatives, e.g. an independent ICANN & global >>> Affirmation of Commitments on zone file authorizations... >> >> I do not understand what affirmation of commitments is. Can you >> please explain. > > Do you mean this in some rhetorical way? I'm sure you're familiar > with the AoC and the work that's been done to monitor and increase > compliance with it...http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc > >> Among whom would these AoCs be made? Are these unilateral >> declarations of good intentions that have no legal basis. I dont see >> how that would do. But ready to discuss. > > While in legal form it's an agreement between ICANN and NTIA, the > commitments are to the whole range of actors involved (I won't say > "the community" to avoid annoying you ;-). Imagine an ICANN in which > the NTIA role evolves toward progressively greater > minimalism--and if/when things are clearly be done properly and > jitters can be overcome—diminishes entirely and ICANN becomes fully > independent, with a host country agreement somewhere "appropriate." > And it enters into AoCs with the global community, perhaps including > actors that don't choose to participate in ICANN. For example, it > swears to never attempt to remove countries from the zone file even in > times of conflict (who knows what root zone operators outside the US > would do even now...). And so on. >> >> (Why are we so bothered about short or even medium terms chance of >> success in laying out what we think is the right thing to do. If a >> treaty is the right thing to do, lets just say that. Lets not take >> the cover of pragmatism. After all what is the near/ medium term >> chance of all countries adhering to human rights, or of eradication >> of poverty. However we do make our positions about which way the >> world and its insitutions should go independent of such assessment. >> Our constitution writers wrote those lofty ideals and built >> institutional designs looking far ahead, didnt they.) > > I'm not bothered, I'm just unconvinced it's the least bad option. > > My point is, whether it's zone file changes or FaceBook policies on > nudity, why can't we think a bit more expansively about institutional > options than just defaulting to centralized UN bodies negotiating > intergovernmental agreements? Why not focus first on what needs to be > done, and consider the range of possible forms that might help do it, > especially if some are less likely to meet immediate political > resistance? Why not do campaigns around specific issues, and make > better use of the IGF? > > Cheers, > > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Jun 4 03:47:58 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:47:58 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Fouad: Let me reword this. ICANN stakeholders have to take down domains. [bodog.com takedown by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] why, because ICANN falls under California Law or simply put US jurisdiction: David: While it is true that ICANN and Verisign have entered into a contract regarding the operation of .COM, that is irrelevant. ICANN has no control over the content of the .COM zone (or any other zone, other than the ones it operates like icann.org of course). Wolfgang: One of the strength of the regulatory environment of the DNS system (as we have this discussed in our Summer School) is that it is based on a diversity of bilateral agreements which specifiy clearly what the contracting parties can do and can not do. With other words, if a problem appears which affects ICANN and/or any TLD Registry one has first to look into the bilateral contract. When Esther Dyson chaired the ICANN Board, this was called "regulating by contracting" and indeed, the diversity of the bilateral contracts give the whole system an additional stability. 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 4 05:05:45 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:05:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU's goals (was Re: "Oversight") In-Reply-To: (message from Fouad Bajwa on Sun, 3 Jun 2012 18:34:51 +0500) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120604090545.58B8F1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The ITU > executive team was in Pakistan recently and lobbying to gain support > for upcoming WCITs and we should start worrying about that shouldn't > we because soon there will be no space for an oversight body at all Fouad, thanks a lot for sharing this information. I am ready to duly start to worry about ITU. :-) What are good sources of information on ITU's goals beyond the nice-sounding generalities that everyone agrees with? 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 Mon Jun 4 05:42:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:42:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE at virtualized.org>, at 12:32:47 on Sun, 3 Jun 2012, David Conrad writes >Sorry, I don't understand this statement. What are "critical internet >resources" over which people within US borders have control and those >outside don't? Adding a new ccTLD to the root would be one example. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 4 06:05:07 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:35:07 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> On Monday 04 June 2012 01:17 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Wolfgang: > One of the strength of the regulatory environment of the DNS system (as we have this discussed in our Summer School) is that it is based on a diversity of bilateral agreements which specifiy clearly what the contracting parties can do and can not do. With other words, if a problem appears which affects ICANN and/or any TLD Registry one has first to look into the bilateral contract. When Esther Dyson chaired the ICANN Board, this was called "regulating by contracting" and indeed, the diversity of the bilateral contracts give the whole system an additional stability. > > wolfgang > Wolfgang You would know that the nature of contractual relationships between private entities has very little bearing, if any, on enforcement of a large majority of national laws. And it is the possible enforcement of such laws of US on ICANN that we have been speaking about. ( The.xxx decision being currently examined in a US court on anti-trust grounds is a case in point.) I also have no idea what you mean by "if a problem appears which affects ... any TLD Registry one has first to look into the bilateral contract. ". When all the .com based websites were seized by US gov on IP related grounds what contract got seen??? No contract mattered, did it. The websites simply disappeared. For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain names, like cctlds, isnt it. (If in doubt about this, pl read the blog by the CEO of Canadian Internet Registration Authority.) For us outside the US, that is bad enough. On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are indeed some important implications of it. It is the lack of capacity outside well funded North based IG spaces that we dont have such required analysis and information available widely. However, what little I have gleaned from different sources makes me feel not too comfortable. Those who seem to know about these things may share further information.... 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 4 06:20:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:50:37 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> > > For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual > websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain > names, like cctlds, isnt it. (If in doubt about this, pl read the blog > by the CEO of Canadian Internet Registration Authority.) sorry, forgot to post the link to the blog. it is http://blog.cira.ca/2012/03/domain-name-seizures-and-ca/ > For us outside the US, that is bad enough. > > On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the > recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible > domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are > indeed some important implications of it. It is the lack of capacity > outside well funded North based IG spaces that we dont have such > required analysis and information available widely. However, what > little I have gleaned from different sources makes me feel not too > comfortable. Those who seem to know about these things may share > further information.... 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 4 07:59:14 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:59:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <4D1F13B0-25A1-468A-8764-66C32270F1C9@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Sun, 3 Jun 2012 12:19:48 -0700) References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2178CD9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8FFA3EA3-DB0D-4E51-9DC4-D7B821EB2AB3@ciroap.org> <20120521125844.BC34C1605@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6F57@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120521150150.9B0EE1605@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0E6FF3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120522075943.5B2DB1605@quill.bollow.ch> <20120522112625.7BEF71605@quill.bollow.ch> <4D1F13B0-25A1-468A-8764-66C32270F1C9@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20120604115914.80397819F@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > I believe that the open, multistakeholder participation model of the > IETF works quite well, and it may be possible to extend with success > into pubic policy development. However, such extension has some > strong prerequisites, and I am uncertain if they can be really be > achieved in the public policy area: > > - Parties willingness to explain the actual basis behind their position, > including their assumptions, reasoning, and expected outcome. > > - Actively following the discussion, realizing that the discussion > itself is the most valuable part of the process in bringing people > to common outcome. > > - Parties willingness to truly consider and change positions based the > reasoning heard from others I would insist that it is quite appropriate to design drafting processes for public policy (in specific distinction from other processes in the public policy area) so that willingness to participate as described above is a prerequisite for effective participation. 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 Mon Jun 4 08:24:41 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:24:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] FW: Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> (message from Avri Doria on Thu, 31 May 2012 11:16:05 -0400) References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> Message-ID: <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance Do you view WCIT as an attempt to grab some kind of oversight role for Internet governance as a whole, or as an attempt to grab some specific roles regarding Internet governance regarding topics that currently aren't specifically in the focus of any Internet governance institution? On the basis of the information that I have available so far, it seems to me more likely that the goal of the ITU officials might be the latter. (I find that worrying enough.) 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 Mon Jun 4 08:55:27 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] U.N. takeover of the Internet must be stopped, U.S. warns In-Reply-To: <4FCAB80B.1040309@cafonso.ca> References: <4FCAB80B.1040309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20120604125527.2F43A819F@quill.bollow.ch> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > With this bringing of the elephant to the room (in this case, the ITU) > again, USA & the associated lobbies which resist the creation of *any* > international system of Internet governance restart the old blablabla we > were tired to hear before bringing CIRs to the IGF table in 2007... The > same folks, the same terrifying arguments. Good point. It may well be appropriate to classify this warning as pure propaganda (aimed at terrifying people into staying away from any true debate on CIR governance that might result in a reduction of US power). In that case, if there are any (more that superficial) similarities between what is being warned about, and in what actual ways the public interest (as seen from an international perspective) is threatened by what might plausibly happen at WCIT, those similarities would be purely coincidental. Greetings, Norbert > On 05/31/2012 11:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57444629-83/u.n-takeover-of-the-internet-mu > > st-be-stopped-u.s-warns/?tag=nl.e703 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 09:17:13 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:17:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@istaff.org> On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:20 AM, parminder wrote: > For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain names, like cctlds, isnt it. (If in doubt about this, pl read the blog by the CEO of Canadian Internet Registration Authority.) > > sorry, forgot to post the link to the blog. it is > http://blog.cira.ca/2012/03/domain-name-seizures-and-ca/ Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up Internet governance in this area. The fact is that the portion of the USG (DoC/NTIA) with that ability has not, to my knowledge, ever exercised that authority contrary to the output of ICANN's processes. The very blog you reference describes it very well - "Think about this: the U.S. government hasn’t even shut down the Internet in nations they’ve been at war or have very strained relations with – Iraq, Libya, Iran are just a few examples – because the trust that supports the Internet is fundamental to the economic and social well-being of humanity. Given that, why would they shut down an entire top level domain over a single website?" This potential ability is also why transparency of DoC/NTIA - IANA interaction is _so_ important and was highlighted in a number of responses during the public comment period on IANA contract renewal. > For us outside the US, that is bad enough. Be very careful what you wish for, as you might well get what you ask... (and there is no reason to believe that any future steward will have the same level of respect for non-political operation of critical Internet infrastructure) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My personal views alone. Freshest if consumed by date in headers. Email was packed by weight of concepts, not volume of keystrokes, and some settling of contents may occur during transmission. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 4 10:52:10 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:52:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> Hi I figure they are going for as much oversight control as they can get. The WSIS was the attempt to strip ICANN wholesale of it responsibilities. Since then they have also been chipping away at things, from claims on IPv6 Addressing to change control of IETF protocols. In WCIT I expect for another push for an oversight model over ICANN, IETF and anything else they can get the requisite number of governments to support. And yes, you are right they will try to get control of any issue they think isn't being covered propoerly, even if they need to fabricate the arguments for the need for such control Basically I think ITU will do anything they can to get control of anything they can, and WCIT is the next battleground in a very long war of attrition. they want it call, but will grab whatever they can. The ITU is forever and they can wait. avri On 4 Jun 2012, at 08:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: >> While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance > > Do you view WCIT as an attempt to grab some kind of oversight role > for Internet governance as a whole, or as an attempt to grab some > specific roles regarding Internet governance regarding topics that > currently aren't specifically in the focus of any Internet governance > institution? > > On the basis of the information that I have available so far, > it seems to me more likely that the goal of the ITU officials might > be the latter. (I find that worrying enough.) > > 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Jun 4 11:08:03 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:08:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@istaff.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up > Internet governance in this area. What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different entities? Best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tglassey at certichron.com Mon Jun 4 11:26:09 2012 From: tglassey at certichron.com (Todd Glassey) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:26:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FCCD391.9010505@certichron.com> On 6/4/2012 7:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi > > I figure they are going for as much oversight control as they can get. > The WSIS was the attempt to strip ICANN wholesale of it responsibilities.e Could the ITU violate another UN Organizations Charter and Controls? I bring this up because ITU is skating dangerously close to WIPO controlled IP in their 'taking control of the Internet' process. There appear to be a couple of patents which control this type of stuff they are talking about implementing from a control perspective. Todd Glassey > > Since then they have also been chipping away at things, from claims on IPv6 Addressing to change control of IETF protocols. > > In WCIT I expect for another push for an oversight model over ICANN, IETF and anything else they can get the requisite number of governments to support. > > And yes, you are right they will try to get control of any issue they think isn't being covered propoerly, even if they need to fabricate the arguments for the need for such control > > Basically I think ITU will do anything they can to get control of anything they can, and WCIT is the next battleground in a very long war of attrition. they want it call, but will grab whatever they can. The ITU is forever and they can wait. > > avri > > On 4 Jun 2012, at 08:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Avri Doria wrote: >>> While I object to WCIT attempt to take over Internet Governance >> >> Do you view WCIT as an attempt to grab some kind of oversight role >> for Internet governance as a whole, or as an attempt to grab some >> specific roles regarding Internet governance regarding topics that >> currently aren't specifically in the focus of any Internet governance >> institution? > >> >> On the basis of the information that I have available so far, >> it seems to me more likely that the goal of the ITU officials might >> be the latter. (I find that worrying enough.) >> >> 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 > > -- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Jun 4 11:32:14 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:32:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ist! aff.org> Message-ID: On 4 Jun 2012, at 11:08, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > > > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up > > Internet governance in this area. Or indeed an entire gTLD especially as the new lot come on line over the next 3 years. > > What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different entities? As long as it was a multistakeholder group, without governmental priority, I wouldn't object. avri > > Best, > > Andrea > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 11:36:38 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista ff.org> Message-ID: <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > > > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up > > Internet governance in this area. > > What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different entities? The implementation of such a decision will ultimately occur within a single entity, which will exist within the territory of a nation state somewhere. Unless that particular nation state agrees not to create independent outcomes via its sovereign powers over the implementation entity, I believe you still have the same situation. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My personal views alone. These thoughts have been prepared with reasonable level of skill and care with the hope that may be useful in your efforts, but we disclaim fitness for a particular purpose unless specifically noted otherwise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 11:47:52 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:47:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria In WCIT I expect for another push for an oversight model over ICANN, IETF and anything else they can get the requisite number of governments to support. [Milton L Mueller] Huh? Avri, I am quite sure that WCIT will not even come close to such a move, as it is almost completely unrelated to the ITRs. Even the US State Dept is not claiming that such things will happen. Did I miss something? Which proposals, drawing from in the ISOC-prepared list of proposals, would give the ITU oversight over IETF? Basically I think ITU will do anything they can to get control of anything they can, and WCIT is the next battleground in a very long war of attrition. they want it call, but will grab whatever they can. The ITU is forever and they can wait. [Milton L Mueller] It’s not my intention to defend ITU, but I do not feel comfortable with the implied demonization of such entities and the attribution of false things to them. If there is a war of attrition, it is clear that ITU is losing it. Time is NOT on the ITU’s side, given their financial condition and their reliance on the old model of hefty fees for access to standards docs. I also think such claims detract from the real threats, which are related to economic aspects regarding interconnection of telcos and their impact on the “neutral” net (end to end argument) model. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 12:07:17 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:07:17 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182086@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder You would know that the nature of contractual relationships between private entities has very little bearing, if any, on enforcement of a large majority of national laws. [Milton L Mueller] What? That's a pretty sweeping statement. Maybe I don't get your meaning here. In fact, contracts among private parties play a huge role in the enforcement of national laws, and national laws often have a huge role in enforcing contracts. And it is the possible enforcement of such laws of US on ICANN that we have been speaking about. ( The.xxx decision being currently examined in a US court on anti-trust grounds is a case in point.) [Milton L Mueller] That case is a joke, and will go nowhere. But still, the application of US antitrust laws to a global entity is not necessarily a bad thing. Just as US consumers might be helped by smart application of European or Indian or Chinese pro-competition laws that limit what transnational giants can do. Of course, from the business's perspective, too many different, possibly conflicting jurisdictions can be a problem. But more deeply, yes, ICANN's status as a US Corp. means that there will always be a threat of lawsuits of this kind. However, remove that threat and put it where? Some of those lawsuits are excellent means of imposing accountability on the governance entity. Make ICANN a standard IO, and almost all of those forms of accountability disappear. Have you tried suing the ITU or WIPO for its competition policy effect? Or for any other reason? When all the .com based websites were seized by US gov on IP related grounds what contract got seen??? No contract mattered, did it. The websites simply disappeared. [Milton L Mueller] What this means is, simply, don't register under .com if you want to be insulated from US IPR law. You have a choice. Register under .IN instead, eh? Or any number of new domains that are not under US jurisdiction. I thought you'd like that, Parminder, as it encourages erosion of that evil US dominance. You should be cheering every time US LEAs over-reach and exploit their handles on US companies operating the Internet! For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain names, like cctlds, isnt it. (If in doubt about this, pl read the blog by the CEO of Canadian Internet Registration Authority.) For us outside the US, that is bad enough. [Milton L Mueller] and your solution is...? Parminder: allow the UN to do this? Avri: to allow a "multistakeholder process" to do this? My view: don't allow _anyone_ to do this arbitrarily and without lawful, well-defined checks and balances. On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are indeed some important implications of it. It is the lack of capacity outside well funded North based IG spaces that we dont have such required analysis and information available widely. [Milton L Mueller] So, read the IGP blog religiously. (P.s., your org is more well-funded than ours...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 4 12:00:10 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:00:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Apologies for the deep dive in the minutiae of root zone management, but I think clarity here is important. On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:05 AM, parminder wrote: > For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain names, like cctlds, isnt it. No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the top-level domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level domain removed. That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent to the US Dept. of Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that existing policies and processes were followed, and when approved that request is forwarded to Verisign as the Root Zone Manager for that TLD's entry in the root zone to be deleted. At that point, the modified zone file is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone Manager with a key that is held by (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) and pushed to the 13 root servers that will make the modified root zone available to the Internet. > On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are indeed some important implications of it. There is no impact of DNSSEC-signing the root to domain name seizures. The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an attempt by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to modify a response from a root server can be detected. Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to top-level domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' respond with "don't know, but ask the name servers for .COM and here is a list of those name servers"). DNSSEC allows validating resolvers (typically operated by ISPs) to verify that no one has tried to insert bogus data in that referral. An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able to insert something inappropriate into the root zone, the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) would be forced to make a decision: publish the "secure" root zone with the inappropriate data or refuse to publish the entire zone. If such a subversion were to take place, I suspect a majority of root server operators (yes, even many of those in the US) would choose the latter with consequences so unappealing as to be comparable with Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. The point here is that no single party involved in root management, the TLD administrators, ICANN, NTIA, Verisign, or the root server operators, is able to unilaterally "remove complete domain names" and any attempt to do so would be "bad". Regards, -drc P.S. I have argued that the current root zone management process has a flaw in that the publication of the root zone should not be done by the Root Zone Manager, rather it should be done by (or at least vetted by) the IANA Functions Manager to ensure the requested change was done correctly before it hits the root servers. Haven't gotten much traction as some folks feel it would add yet another step in an already too Byzantine a process for something as simple as modifying a zone file. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 4 12:18:43 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:18:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@istaff.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista ff.org> Message-ID: <1616EAF1-CF76-490C-B80E-0876DBE78044@virtualized.org> John, On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:17 AM, John Curran wrote: > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) As described in my previous note, this is not the case. > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up > Internet governance in this area. One of the reasons for the Byzantine nature of the current set up is to remove the risk of a single entity from being able to do precisely this. 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Jun 4 12:19:29 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:19:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > >> Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) >> That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up >> Internet governance in this area. > > What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different entities? > > The implementation of such a decision will ultimately occur within a single entity, > which will exist within the territory of a nation state somewhere. Unless that > particular nation state agrees not to create independent outcomes via its sovereign > powers over the implementation entity, I believe you still have the same situation. Most international organizations, including those that "implement decisions", have a certain number of immunities exactly to handle this kind of situations. Best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 4 12:26:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:26:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: "Oversight" Message-ID: <3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:33 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> US employs the term 'oversight' for the role Dept of Commerce plays vis a vis ICANN. >> >> Yes, generally for zone file, IANA function, AoC, etc—more delimited and light weight than the sort of broad interventionist policymaking that's been variously described by some G77 & China governments. > > I have repeatedly said that the US version of what is 'oversight' as you describe it, is what I mean by oversight. So can we proceed ahead with that, rather than you insisting that is not what I mean. I was not insisting you mean anything, I was clearly referring to what some G77 & China governments have proposed. > I have in my current proposal/ formulation specially sought separation of oversight from other (desirable or not) public policy issues/ functions. Are you against this separation? Why when I am ready to discuss the (narrow) oversight function as separated from other larger policy functions do you insist on conflating them. Do you want to see these two set of functions together? If not, we are both on the same page and can try to move ahead. I've always been for separation, so this is a line of interrogation we can dispense with. >> >>> WGIG was also clear in using the term 'oversight' as the equivalent to the role played by US Dept of Commerce. >> >> Having been on the WGIG and debated the matter at length with the half dozen government reps that pushed the issue, I don't think this is accurate. > > Sorry, I know you were on the WGIG but as I read the WGIG report (and also Tunis Agenda) I can clearly make out that it saw 'oversight' function in the narrow sense as I am speaking about rather than the broad sense that you insist it is meant in international talk. Ok, so I was involved in the months of intensive discussion and the writing of the report, but you will now correct me with your authoritative interpretation of what we discussed and wrote. I've heard this is the era of the Death of the Author, but wow... >> If you look at their three oversight models, these went beyond the NTIA functions. > > If you look at the WGIG report (for those who may want to, it is here ), the four models you speak of are not oversight models (that is the short-hand that gets used often), That would be news to everyone involved. The shorthand was used by the government reps that wrote the three models proposing the creation of new UN entities, and by other WGIG members. That's not surprising, since their writing flowed from an agreed framework distinguishing a "forum function," an "oversight function," and coordination functions pertaining to international and national mechanisms (which sort of drifted, although the former found its way into the IGF mandate). We addressed the forum function with the IGF proposal. We addressed the oversight function with the 4 models proposals. That was the discussion, the intention, the reality. You reference the WGIG book I edited. Have a look at Abdullah's chapter, "The Need for International Internet Oversight." What's it about? Model 1, the Global Internet Council. Odd, if the GIC wasn't intended as oversight; maybe you could explain to him what he meant? Moreover, he argues, "Global oversight is also needed to address the category of international public policy issues which relate to the use of the Internet, such as spam, network security, cybercrime, privacy, content control and capacity building in developing countries, which are outside the range of ICANN's mandate." A bit beyond the NTIA roles, no? Consider also the replies to questionnaire used to elicit views http://www.wgig.org/docs/IG-questionnaire-response.pdf. An illustrative summary comment on p.6 is: "A number of responses indicate that oversight is broad and inclusive of any function as needed or relevant to the issue being discussed, e.g.: “(N)o function should be left out apriori.”" Some of us had a different view, hence "Some responses emphasise that oversight functions need to be defined precisely and narrowly, and to be “minimal and non-intrusive”". And so on. Also, please note that the three relevant models---Global Internet Council, International Internet Council, and Global Internet Policy Council—all proposed to centralize responsibility for both oversight (in the NTIA sense) and global public policy in the same place, to be performed in an integrated manner. So not surprisingly, the boundary lines between what counts as oversight and what counts as GPP have blurred in many minds. That blurring is further advanced by using "Enhanced Cooperation" as shorthand for both. > > For the casual reader I should make it clear that at this point I am not advocating any of these WGIG models, I am only making the point that the these is sufficiently entreched and wide-spread understanding of 'oversight' as a relatively clear and narrow set of functions, distinct from all kinds of other global Internet related public policy issues. Even if I were to agree with you there's this wide-spread understanding, the operative point remains that the 3 WGIG models centralize responsibility for both. So did Iran's proposed Council for Global Public Policy and Oversight. So did the IBSA proposal for a body that would, inter alia, "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting" (which, you must admit, also goes well beyond the NTIA functions) and do GPP including dispute settlement, development, etc. So does the Indian CIRP proposal, that adds to this IBSA language functions like "Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies." > This gives us enough basis for us to proceed on thinking of these functions separately, that is if we indeed want to do so, in suggesting alternatives that better address the concerns and fears of different actors. > > As I understand, Bill, one of your prime problems is that the two issues of oversight and wider Internet related public policy are normally thrown together, so when I am suggesting we proceed with thinking of them, and the needed institutional responses, separately, why not just come along :) . I've been along for over a decade! It's the governments that aren't... Turning to your other message, On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, parminder wrote: >> My apologies for using short hand, let me quote in full: "On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative multilateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) > > Lets then get this out of the way, although if you were unclear about certain terms in our joint CS statement if would be best if you asked us what we meant by them rather than 'unilaterally' - and we will have to occasion to comment on the meaning and implication of this term a little later - ascribing them very definitive meaning of your own. I quoted your document, that's unilateralism and a distortion? Have you been hanging around with Newt Gingrich? :-) > > You may notice that, first of all, we have separated the institutional model for CIR/tech oversight from that for larger Internet related public policies (aka the work OECDs CCICP does) I do, but conversations indicate that not everyone who's read your statement does. After the above bit about a new multilateral body that would do the oversight/NTIA function, it goes on to say (may I quote partially without being accused of gross distortions etc?) that "On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making…[we need] a new UN-based democratic mechanism." Easy for the quick reader to think it's one not two bodies. But whatever. So to summarize: 1. We are in agreement that oversight should refer to just the USG/NTIA functions. 2. We are in agreement that, as per your recent statement, it is preferable that oversight and broader GPP be addressed in different institutional contexts rather than folded into one body, right? A couple questions follow. Let me try on my Parminder interrogator hat :-) 3. Do you therefore agree that the G77 & China proposals of new UN bodies that would do both together are ill-considered? Yes or no? 4. Do you therefore agree that the IBSA and Indian proposals of a body to "integrate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting" along with performing a wide array of GPP functions are similarly ill-considered, and that these may contribute to the lexical confusion? Yes or no? If we agree on 1 & 2, I don't see how we could disagree on 3 & 4, but maybe I'm missing something. Either way, let's build on the areas of agreement. Cheers, 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 4 12:28:55 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ist! aff.org > Message-ID: <35F51F9E-6947-45C5-B7A5-8CC1C500283B@virtualized.org> Avri, On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: >>> Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > Or indeed an entire gTLD especially as the new lot come on line over the next 3 years. This is an interesting case and not one for which there is precedent. Given the contractual relation between the gTLDs and ICANN, I suspect the interpretation would be that ICANN is the gTLD's "sponsoring organization" and would thus be in a position to request changes (modulo whatever contractual terms might exist in the gTLD contract). The request would still need to be validated by IANA staff, approved by NTIA, implemented by Verisign, and published to the Internet by the root server operators. 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 acm.org Mon Jun 4 12:31:14 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:31:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> Hi, In terms of the IETF, it is my understanding that among the changes they recommend is a requirements for compliance with ITU Recommendations regarding Internet protocols, including specifically IETF protocols (e.g. the whole MPLs, VPN set of protocols). As for whether the ITU or I die first, I am betting on me. I see them as having time on their side, but it is a moot point. As for demonization, I don't demonize them. They are doing what it is their nature, and they beleive their mandate, to do. Yes, I have picked the side that is not them for a great many reasons and I am saying we need to fight them on every possible front. But I don't see them as demons at all. avri On 4 Jun 2012, at 11:47, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf OfAvri Doria > > In WCIT I expect for another push for an oversight model over ICANN, IETF and anything else they can get the requisite number of governments to support. > > [Milton L Mueller] Huh? Avri, I am quite sure that WCIT will not even come close to such a move, as it is almost completely unrelated to the ITRs. Even the US State Dept is not claiming that such things will happen. Did I miss something? Which proposals, drawing from in the ISOC-prepared list of proposals, would give the ITU oversight over IETF? > > Basically I think ITU will do anything they can to get control of anything they can, and WCIT is the next battleground in a very long war of attrition. they want it call, but will grab whatever they can. The ITU is forever and they can wait. > > [Milton L Mueller] It’s not my intention to defend ITU, but I do not feel comfortable with the implied demonization of such entities and the attribution of false things to them. If there is a war of attrition, it is clear that ITU is losing it. Time is NOT on the ITU’s side, given their financial condition and their reliance on the old model of hefty fees for access to standards docs. I also think such claims detract from the real threats, which are related to economic aspects regarding interconnection of telcos and their impact on the “neutral” net (end to end argument) model. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tglassey at certichron.com Mon Jun 4 12:35:19 2012 From: tglassey at certichron.com (Todd Glassey) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:35:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ist! aff.org> Message-ID: <4FCCE3C7.9010002@certichron.com> On 6/4/2012 8:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 4 Jun 2012, at 11:08, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) >>> That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up >>> Internet governance in this area. not under international IP publication treaty it can't. Removing anything from publication like this may have significant legal impact including in places like France where guaranteed access to the internet is actually "a guaranteed access to internet-published content" law in reality. > > Or indeed an entire gTLD especially as the new lot come on line over the next 3 years. Again - ICANN and the entire community is tied to these IP publication issues I think that need to be factored into this thinking. Todd > >> >> What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different entities? > > As long as it was a multistakeholder group, without governmental priority, I wouldn't object. > > > avri > >> >> Best, >> >> Andrea >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Todd S. Glassey - CISM CIFI CTO Certichron Inc This message contains information which may be confidential and/or privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) thereto without retaining any copies. Further we have a formal OPT OUT Policy posted on our website pertaining to the use of any Email Addresses gleaned or taken from any source, web, mailing lists, previous customer lists etc. In all instances we choose to formally OPT OUT and this notice constitutes formal disclosure that you may not collect, buy or sell or provide access to this email address or any pertaining to our DNS MX Record Publication License posted on the web at http://www-wp.certichron.com/?page_id=3947. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Jun 4 12:37:29 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:37:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch> References: <3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On 4 Jun 2012, at 12:26, William Drake wrote: >> >> If you look at the WGIG report (for those who may want to, it is here ), the four models you speak of are not oversight models (that is the short-hand that gets used often), > > That would be news to everyone involved. > In fact the nickname for Model 2 was: the no oversight model > Model 2 > 57. There is no need for a specific oversight organization. > 58. It may be necessary to enhance the role of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in order to meet the concerns of some Governments on specific issues. > 59. The forum, as proposed in section V.A.1 above, with full and equal participation of all stakeholders, could, in addition to the various functions set out therein, provide coordination functions for participating stakeholders and produce analysis and recommendations on some issues. > 60. This forum would provide a coordination function for participating stakeholders by creating a space in which all issues involving the existing Internet governance organizations could be openly discussed. These discussions will be enabled by the transparency of the participating organizations and participation should include a commitment to transparency. > 61. The forum would also interact with or create specific issue initiatives to produce analyses or recommendations on different Internet-related issues. The initiatives should include all the stakeholders involved in the issue and would make recommendations to the forum and to the stakeholders. As one of the proponents of Model 2 it was specifically an answer to the question of oversight. BTW, I pretty much still beleive in this - haven't reread it in a while. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jun 4 12:51:20 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:51:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] rational dialogue on the oversight topic Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Oh, I did not realise you are really interested in a rational dialogue on this topic! Because your email basically rejected my proposal on ICANN oversight ex ante as not worthy of consideration, since I dont attend ICANN meetings, I am "oddly ignorant of post WSIS critiques of 'oversight' and 'public policy'" (whose critiques? yours?), and you wonder "whose agenda is it (meaning, my proposal), because it is certainly not civil society's". And after this summary rejection, you pointed me to your own submission on 'ICANN transition' of 2009, apparently as the only proposal worthy of discussion. Do you think this lays the ground for a 'rational dialogue'? [Milton L Mueller] Well, yes. You slap everyone in the face with a call to arms that implies we are all idiots, I reply in kind. Now that we've got each other's attention, maybe we can have a rational dialogue. Your submission says, there should be a US led international agreement on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by what does 'US led' mean. Pl explain. [Milton L Mueller] OK. US now controls the root and ICANN via the IANA contract. If we are to move beyond that, the US has to take the initiative; i.e., the US has to say, "we are willing and ready to consider a new model." Remember, those were comments in a U.S. proceeding, urging the US to take that leadership. I can only understand international agreements under international systems, like the UN. [Milton L Mueller] And, even on this list, we can see how poorly it works when the UN or a UN agency like the ITU tries to take the initiative. It becomes a "takeover" proposal and it plays into the hands of US-based nationalists. And it seems surprisingly easy to get many others to jump on that bandwagon - see, e.g., Avri's recent comments on the ITU. Ergo, "US-led" is required. I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I [Milton L Mueller] I think Bill Drake answered this claim very effectively. That is not what "oversight" means in historical context or to most of the people using it. To most govts, oversight means imposing or injecting their "public policy" concerns onto Internet governance institutions, collectively or individually. So we are back to the "public policy" problem. Now we all know, or should know, that most govts still believe they should be setting public policy for the internet. (It's in the Tunis Agenda) From years of experience, including especially form watching the GAC and an IGF workshop on that topic, I have come to understand what it means. It means, "we want to alter any ICANN decision to go along with whatever concerns we as national governments have, whatever political winds are blowing us at the moment and whatever lobbyist made the greatest impression on us." It does NOT mean "ensuring adherence to a fixed legal framework." Ensuring adherence to a legal framework is more like what courts do, not the politicians and ministers/govt bureaucrats who would staff an "oversight agency." In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to be quite confused between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and at the same time putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to FoE regulation, anti-trust law etc (through the international agreement). This is subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it. [Milton L Mueller] Yes and no. Yes, I agree that codifying FoE and antitrust is in effect a policy. No, because the "policy" embedded in FoE and antitrust rules is stable, well-defined and fixed, not subjected to new formulation and change based on passing political vicissitudes. In other words, we don't want a committee of governments that reviews every ICANN decision and says "how does this conform to or contribute to my current policy objectives?" Instead, we want a dispute-driven (i.e., bottom up), court-like review process that says, "someone has claimed that this particular action of ICANN violates freedom of expression rights. Is this claim correct or not?" And if you want to ask me why I believe it is legitimate to codify FoE and antitrust as the relevant policies, it is because I believe those are the correct policies - ones that will keep the internet and the people who use it thriving. I imagine it would be hard to get Putin or the Iranian government to agree on those, which is why I am _not_ in principle committed to a pure intergovernmental process. I think the more-liberal Internet can and should create its own institutional framework and bypass the repressive and authoritarian regimes if and when it can. Then you seek " an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN should operate", whereby you mean an body of US law. No we cant agree here US law is made and can be changed by US legislature, and that doesnt work for the rest of the world. The appropriate body has to be of international law. [Milton L Mueller] it would be fine for me, I used to believe the same thing, but then people who understand how international law really works convinced me that it doesn't really afford individuals much protection. Show me some cases, e.g., where the international legal system really upheld an individual's free expression rights in a timely and effective manner and I might change my views. You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use California law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt work for me. [Milton L Mueller] only with respect to membership and certain procedural rights. I agree that this aspect of the proposal is flawed. There could be better proposals, but I haven't seen one. I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global resource at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek to subvert relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA with in favour of international arbitration. Why being so stingy about sticking to national law and redress systems in this case. Why cant we have an international redress system. [Milton L Mueller] If you are talking about ICANN, I think most of the redress would be internal to ICANN's processes, and thus would be fully international. E.g., the policy making bodies are governed by ICANN bylaws; the Independent Review Process was an arbitration that was not conducted under California Corp. law but under ICANN's own defined procedures. I am just talking about falling back to Cal. law for some basic forms of accountability regarding procedure and membership. The FTA argument is a red herring, has nothing to do with me or my position or what we are talking about here. Your turn. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Jun 4 12:55:25 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:55:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] rational dialogue on the oversight topic In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 4 Jun 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Avri’s recent comments on the ITU. Ergo, “US-led” is required. not a chance that i can be quoted as saying : Ergo, “US-led” is required. if you read my words you will see quite a different point of view, which is that both are to be fought with equal enthusiasm. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 4 12:55:37 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:55:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> No, they will not die, but maybe they will become a "Spectre" organization, not in the sense which terror movies use, but in the sense of concentrating on international allocation coordination of the spectrum. --c.a. On 06/04/2012 01:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In terms of the IETF, it is my understanding that among the changes they recommend is a requirements for compliance with ITU Recommendations regarding Internet protocols, including specifically IETF protocols (e.g. the whole MPLs, VPN set of protocols). > > As for whether the ITU or I die first, I am betting on me. I see them as having time on their side, but it is a moot point. > > As for demonization, I don't demonize them. They are doing what it is their nature, and they beleive their mandate, to do. Yes, I have picked the side that is not them for a great many reasons and I am saying we need to fight them on every possible front. But I don't see them as demons at all. > > avri > > On 4 Jun 2012, at 11:47, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf OfAvri Doria >> >> In WCIT I expect for another push for an oversight model over ICANN, IETF and anything else they can get the requisite number of governments to support. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] Huh? Avri, I am quite sure that WCIT will not even come close to such a move, as it is almost completely unrelated to the ITRs. Even the US State Dept is not claiming that such things will happen. Did I miss something? Which proposals, drawing from in the ISOC-prepared list of proposals, would give the ITU oversight over IETF? >> >> Basically I think ITU will do anything they can to get control of anything they can, and WCIT is the next battleground in a very long war of attrition. they want it call, but will grab whatever they can. The ITU is forever and they can wait. >> >> [Milton L Mueller] It’s not my intention to defend ITU, but I do not feel comfortable with the implied demonization of such entities and the attribution of false things to them. If there is a war of attrition, it is clear that ITU is losing it. Time is NOT on the ITU’s side, given their financial condition and their reliance on the old model of hefty fees for access to standards docs. I also think such claims detract from the real threats, which are related to economic aspects regarding interconnection of telcos and their impact on the “neutral” net (end to end argument) model. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 12:58:14 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:58:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] rational dialogue on the oversight topic In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218213A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I was using your ITU comments to show how easy it is to get intelligent, non-patriotic, even non-USA people caught up in the UN takeover frenzy. My points was, that unless the US takes the initiative it is unlikely that change will occur in that particular space. On 4 Jun 2012, at 12:51, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Avri’s recent comments on the ITU. Ergo, “US-led” is required. not a chance that i can be quoted as saying : Ergo, “US-led” is required. if you read my words you will see quite a different point of view, which is that both are to be fought with equal enthusiasm. 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 4 13:19:06 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:19:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <1616EAF1-CF76-490C-B80E-0876DBE78044@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista ff.org> <1616EAF1-CF76-490C-B80E-0876DBE78044@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2012, at 9:18 AM, David Conrad wrote: > John, > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:17 AM, John Curran wrote: >> Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > > As described in my previous note, this is not the case. Thanks for the correction - my summary was too terse, as your review of the process proves. I was trying to say that a court order, once delivered to ICANN instructing them to take action to remove a TLD, could result in that outcome if ICANN then initiated the process and it ran to conclusion. I don't believe that would happen due to the need for it to go through DoC (and hence my comment that we are not "aware how ICANN/DoC would respond") but you also highlight another protection, in that the results would need to be accepted by the root server operators. >> That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up >> Internet governance in this area. > > One of the reasons for the Byzantine nature of the current set up is to remove the risk of a single entity from being able to do precisely this. Understood, and indeed ICANN and the USG/DoC has gone through some extensive work to protect against unilateral changes; I doubt we'll see that attention to detail in the future. Thanks again, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. The information in this email is a summary of key concepts; you should read the full materials before mentally investing. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 4 13:49:34 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:49:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from David Conrad on Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:00:10 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120604174934.6CDC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:05 AM, parminder wrote: > > For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove > > individual websites, that might be true, but they can remove > > complete domain names, like cctlds, isnt it. > > No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. > > ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US > Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the > top-level domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level > domain removed. That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent > to the US Dept. of Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that > existing policies and processes were followed, and when approved > that request is forwarded to Verisign as the Root Zone Manager for > that TLD's entry in the root zone to be deleted. At that point, the > modified zone file is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone Manager with > a key that is held by (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) and > pushed to the 13 root servers that will make the modified root zone > available to the Internet. Suppose that someone (e.g. an industry association of the copyright industry) sued Verisign in a US court with the demand that a given TLD (with a TLD operator not subject to US jurisdiction) be taken down (on the basis that the TLD operator does not comply with demands to take down domain names that are used for purposes that are, under US law, copyright violations), and suppose that then Verisign as the Root Zone Manager is served a formally valid court order to take down that TLD. Am I right in assuming that there is nothing that would stop Verisign from feeling obligated to comply with that court order? > The point here is that no single party involved in root management, > the TLD administrators, ICANN, NTIA, Verisign, or the root server > operators, is able to unilaterally "remove complete domain names" But maybe someone who is not normally involved in root management, a judge who maybe hasn't been given any information on how what this action would affect the Internet as a whole, could do it? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 14:07:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:07:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber search engine exposes vulnerabilities - TheWashington Post Message-ID: <18A3C8A0ACC04A3EB03B5B19385101A2@UserVAIO> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/cyber-search-engine-exposes-vul nerabilities/2012/06/03/gJQAIK9KCV_print.html Cyber search engine Shodan exposes industrial control systems to new risks By Robert O'Harrow Jr., Published: June 3 It began as a hobby for a -teenage computer programmer named John Matherly, who wondered how much he could learn about devices linked to the Internet. After tinkering with code for nearly a decade, Matherly eventually developed a way to map and capture the specifications of everything from desktop computers to network printers to Web servers. He called his fledgling search engine Shodan , and in late 2009 he began asking friends to try it out. He had no inkling it was about to alter the balance of security in cyberspace. "I just thought it was cool," said Matherly, now 28. Matherly and other Shodan users quickly realized they were revealing an astonishing fact: Uncounted numbers of industrial control computers, the systems that automate such things as water plants and power grids, were linked in, and in some cases they were wide open to exploitation by even moderately talented hackers. Control computers were built to run behind the safety of brick walls. But such security is rapidly eroded by links to the Internet. Recently, an unknown hacker broke into a water plant south of Houston using a default password he found in a user manual. A Shodan user found and accessed the cyclotron at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Yet another user found thousands of unsecured Cisco routers, the computer systems that direct data on the networks. "There's no reason these systems should be exposed that way," Matherly said. "It just seems ludicrous." The rise of Shodan illuminates the rapid convergence of the real world and cyberspace, and the degree to which machines that millions of people depend on every day are becoming vulnerable to intrusion and digital sabotage. It also shows that the online world is more interconnected and complex than anyone fully understands, leaving us more exposed than we previously imagined. Over the past two years, Shodan has gathered data on nearly 100 million devices, recording their exact locations and the software systems that run them. "Expose online devices," the Web site says. "Webcams. Routers. Power Plants. iPhones. Wind Turbines. Refrigerators. VoIP Phones." Homeland security officials have warned that the obscurity that had protected many industrial control systems was fast dis-appearing in a flood of digital light. "This means that these delicate [control computers] are potentially reachable from the Internet by malicious and skilled adversaries," a Department of Homeland Security paper concluded in 2010. The number of intrusions and attacks in the United States is rising fast. >From October to April, the DHS received 120 incident reports, about the same as for all of 2011. But no one knows how often breaches have occurred or how serious they have been. Companies are under no obligation to report such intrusions to authorities. --------------- SNIP --------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 14:14:27 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:14:27 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE30@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> N: Suppose that someone (e.g. an industry association of the copyright industry) sued Verisign in a US court with the demand that a given TLD (with a TLD operator not subject to US jurisdiction) be taken down (on the basis that the TLD operator does not comply with demands to take down domain names that are used for purposes that are, under US law, copyright violations), and suppose that then Verisign as the Root Zone Manager is served a formally valid court order to take down that TLD. Am I right in assuming that there is nothing that would stop Verisign from feeling obligated to comply with that court order? W: My understanding from the bilateral contract VeriSign has with the DoC to operate the Hidden Server is that VeriSign will follow only an order which comes from the DoC/NTIA. Any modification of a zone file in the root (deletion, addition, modifcation) needs the authorization of the DoC/NTIA. This is what a court - in a given case - has to consider. 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 4 14:30:35 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:30:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> (message from John Curran on Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:38 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista ff.org> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > > On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: > > > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) > > > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up > > > Internet governance in this area. > > > > What if the authority to take such decision was shared among > > different entities? > > The implementation of such a decision will ultimately occur within a single > entity, which will exist within the territory of a nation state somewhere. As long as DNSSEC is not changed from its current specification, I agree. However the DNSSEC specification could be changed to allow for several logically independent signatures per zone, each of which can be present or not, with the semantics that the zone shall be considered validly signed if more than half of the expected signatures are there. For the root zone I would then propose that it would be reasonable to have five root zone signing keys. Each of those root zone signing keys would be entrusted to an organization on a different continent, with these five organizations chosen to be as trustworthy as possible, and as independent of each other as possible, and each protected as well as possible by means of a suitable host country agreement from legal demands to act contrary to the agreed procedures for root zone management. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 4 14:38:39 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:38:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120604174934.6CDC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <20120604174934.6CDC5 819F@qui ll.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <37EB9E36-2BFA-48AD-9FC2-33451A9ECC63@virtualized.org> Norbert, On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [...] suppose that then Verisign as the > Root Zone Manager is served a formally valid court order to take down > that TLD. > > Am I right in assuming that there is nothing that would stop Verisign > from feeling obligated to comply with that court order? Yes, although I suspect there would be a number of legal appeals, delaying actions, etc. However, if this were done, it would then immediately run into how the root data is distributed to the Internet. There are 12 root server operators, of which, 3 are not subject to US legal jurisdiction and all but one (Verisign which operates two of the root servers which I believe operates those two servers under contract to the USG) being under no legal or contractual obligation to anyone to do anything. Given the scenario you describe, I believe it highly unlikely that those non-US root server operators (one based in Sweden, one based in the Netherlands, and the last based in Japan) would accept the modified root zone. I have some doubt that even some of the US-based root server operators would accept the zone. The end result would almost certainly be a splintering of the Internet as various ISPs remove "offending" (in their view) root servers from their resolvers hints files, resulting in the exact thing pretty much everyone has been fighting against since the creation of ICANN. And note that I'm ignoring the impact of "anycast" on administration of the root zone. There are a large number of machines in a large number of countries that are serving the root zone. Given an action as you describe, I have some doubt that all of those instances would continue to serve the same data. This would be "crossing the streams"-level of "bad" (apologies to anyone not familiar with the "Ghostbusters" reference). > But maybe someone who is not normally involved in root management, a > judge who maybe hasn't been given any information on how what this > action would affect the Internet as a whole, could do it? I have some skepticism that said judge would not be informed, perhaps stridently, by a vast array of individuals, organizations, and their sainted aunts. I also doubt it could be done quietly or quickly, thereby giving time for rationality to reassert itself. So, could Verisign (not ICANN) be forced to "remove a website"? Yes, there theoretically is a way given Verisign is the root zone editor/signer and subject to US law. Would that have the (presumably) desired result of removing that website from the Internet (or even the DNS)? No. It would simply create chaos. 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 4 15:23:13 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:23:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:30 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > As long as DNSSEC is not changed from its current specification, I > agree. > > However the DNSSEC specification could be changed to allow for > several logically independent signatures per zone, each of > which can be present or not, with the semantics that the zone shall be > considered validly signed if more than half of the expected signatures > are there. I do not believe that DNSSEC needs to be changed to accomplish an outcome very similar to what you propose (i.e. a requirement for multiple independent parties to concur with the change), but I would defer to David Conrad to better describe the functioning of the DNSSEC Trusted Community Representatives as I believe he was formally part of its design team. > For the root zone I would then propose that it would be reasonable > to have five root zone signing keys. > > Each of those root zone signing keys would be entrusted to an > organization on a different continent, with these five organizations > chosen to be as trustworthy as possible, and as independent of each > other as possible, and each protected as well as possible by means of > a suitable host country agreement from legal demands to act contrary > to the agreed procedures for root zone management. Actually, something quite similar is already in place: http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/ FYI, /John Disclaimers: My personal views only. In case of Internet policy conflagration, do not use attempt to use top-down governance structures but instead proceed in a brisk multi-stakeholder fashion to the nearest open forum. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 4 16:35:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:35:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] rational dialogue on the oversight topic In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218213A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218213A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I was using your ITU comments to show how easy it is to get intelligent, > non-patriotic, even non-USA people caught up in the UN takeover frenzy. Yes. My 82 year old Uncle asked me about it this weekend. > > My points was, that unless the US takes the initiative it is unlikely that > change will occur in that particular space. I think that is true. I think ALL on this list are not happy with unilateralism. MOST on this list would like to see it changed. SOME on this list understand that if the USG doesn't want to transfer this no-fee contract, it won't be....ITU black helicopters notwithstanding. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jun 4 16:42:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:42:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] Wanted: Cross-Border Data Flows Civil Society Experts Message-ID: Dear All, There is a member of the MAG who is looking for civil society experts and we would like to send a list of names, emails and contact details for a workshop with the Internet Society along, see(No.86) Solutions for enabling cross-border data flows http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals**** ** ** If you are an expert in this area please send your information to coordinators at igcaucus.org Sending your name and contact details is not a guarantee of selection as it is up to the Workshop organisers to choose and we would like to give them something to choose from. Please put [Response: Cross-Border Data Flows Civil Society Experts] in he subject line, thank yout Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 4 20:17:06 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 02:17:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from John Curran on Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:23:13 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> John Curran wrote: > > For the root zone I would then propose that it would be reasonable > > to have five root zone signing keys. > > > > Each of those root zone signing keys would be entrusted to an > > organization on a different continent, with these five organizations > > chosen to be as trustworthy as possible, and as independent of each > > other as possible, and each protected as well as possible by means of > > a suitable host country agreement from legal demands to act contrary > > to the agreed procedures for root zone management. > > Actually, something quite similar is already in place: > > http://www.root-dnssec.org/tcr/ However that is specifically aimed at building trust within the Internet technical community. I wouldn't expect it to help with being trustworthy in the eyes of those who don't have their roots in this technical community. And furthermore, among people outside the US there are strong reasons for not wanting to entrust a special role in CIR management to the US, reasons which are quite independent of any objective risks of the US government abusing such a special role: When your country has been at the receiving end of heavy handed US pressure to adopt and enforce US legal ideas according to US economic interests, quite naturally one of the side effects of that is that you simply don't want to entrust the US particularly with something that is of great value in your eyes. So I think that it is a sound idea to distribute the root zone signing function across multiple countries (I think it was Andrea who asked whether this would be possible), even if that requires updating the DNSSEC RFCs. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 4 20:28:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:28:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I wouldn't expect it to help with being trustworthy in the eyes of > those who don't have their roots in this technical community. Out of curiosity, what would constitute "being trustworthy" outside of the technical and externally verifiability of key integrity? 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 4 22:38:58 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:38:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > And furthermore, among people outside the US there are strong reasons > for not wanting to entrust a special role in CIR management to the US, > reasons which are quite independent of any objective risks of the US > government abusing such a special role: When your country has been at > the receiving end of heavy handed US pressure to adopt and enforce US > legal ideas according to US economic interests, quite naturally one > of the side effects of that is that you simply don't want to entrust > the US particularly with something that is of great value in your eyes. That may be true, but that is a facile assessment of the situation as it considers the USG as one cohesive entity. I myself can find many troubling aspects to how parts of the US Government handle Internet-related matters (e.g. SOPA/ACTA, Domain name takedowns which appear to affect parties outside the US and are anchored in commercial disputes, et cetera...) However, those are not the action of the US Dept of Commerce/NTIA, which is the party which issues the IANA Function contract and is the oversight agency with respect to ICANN. US Dept of Commerce's track record in terms of providing oversight in a fairly non-political manner is quite reasonable, and there are no clear instances of abuse of the NTIA/IANA/ICANN relationship. To reiterate a point from last year, the US Dept of Commerce has supported the transition from top-down contracting vehicles to more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder processes for management of critical Internet resources. This has been shown with the formation of ICANN to provide a more open and international process for DNS policy coordination as well as the expiration and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. If someone can point out another organization (other than the US DoC) which has been more actively releasing its control over the Internet in preference to multi-stakeholder mechanisms, I'd love to hear about it. I would also like to see an end to the unique relationship that the USG has in oversight of Internet infrastructure, but that should be because existing mechanisms have reached an appropriate level of maturity rather than imposition of a top-down, government-led body under the very weak theory that such will provide a form of oversight which is nearly as free of political interests as the community has enjoyed to date. /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Contents under pressure; failure to plan appropriately before opening may result in permanent harm or injury. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Jun 5 02:03:23 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:03:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: FWIW ITU: More Transparency On World Conference On Telecommunications (WCIT)? The UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) today announced it would start publishing briefing papers on the issues surrounding the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) and explain the “processes as well participation rights and opportunities to comment.” [..] http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/04/itu-more-transparency-on-world-conference-on-telecommunications-wcit/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts - - - On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No, they will not die, but maybe they will become a "Spectre" > organization, not in the sense which terror movies use, but in the sense > of concentrating on international allocation coordination of the spectrum. > > --c.a. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jun 5 04:18:49 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:18:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri Does a sign saying "No fishing" and "No dogs allowed" mean that these two are in the same category? Rui On 31 May 2012 03:35, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 30 May 2012, at 21:17, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Article 3 (7) on Facebook's Terms "You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence." >> This is in line with the exceptions under Article 19 of the ICCPR as explained by La Rue .Facebook Terms are found here: http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms and most countries laws prohibit hate speech, nudity etc. > > > not sure in what world nudity and hate speech fall under the same category. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 Rui Correia _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 04:19:47 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:19:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 08:03:23 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" writes >ITU: More Transparency On World Conference On Telecommunications (WCIT)? Why is this a risk? Other than the hundreds of hours required to read all the documents and comment on them? Or were you hoping that a secret agreement could later be repudiated because of that secrecy (I don't think that's likely to happen). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 04:44:28 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:44:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil Message-ID: I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, with children of all ages participating everyday. If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ X-rated movie. And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed around the world. I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not want him/ her to see? The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would show it to her own young children. A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. It is > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their own > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was > blocked. > > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from the > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. But > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot show > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking old > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were not > wearing shirts. > > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the > controversial pictures can be accessed > here: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml > > Marília > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 Rui Correia _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 06:29:14 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:29:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from David Conrad on Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:28:40 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I wouldn't expect it to help with being trustworthy in the eyes of > > those who don't have their roots in this technical community. > > Out of curiosity, what would constitute "being trustworthy" outside of the > technical and externally verifiability of key integrity? Technical and external verifiability of key integrity in a way that is in addition geographically distributed so that the system would still work reliably if any particular country and all people in it were to suddenly turn rogue. John Curran wrote: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > And furthermore, among people outside the US there are strong reasons > > for not wanting to entrust a special role in CIR management to the US, > > reasons which are quite independent of any objective risks of the US > > government abusing such a special role: When your country has been at > > the receiving end of heavy handed US pressure to adopt and enforce US > > legal ideas according to US economic interests, quite naturally one > > of the side effects of that is that you simply don't want to entrust > > the US particularly with something that is of great value in your eyes. > > That may be true, but that is a facile assessment of the situation as it > considers the USG as one cohesive entity. Yes, sure, but I'm talking here about an emotional assessment of the situation that inevitably happens. This is a reality that cannot be changed by arguments based on in-depth analysis that differentiates between different parts of the US government. In addition I would insist that CIR management should be designed to be so robust that I should not have to trust any particular part of a country's government more than what is justifiable on the basis of the overall track record of that country's political and governmental system. 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 hakik at hakik.org Tue Jun 5 06:50:33 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:50:33 +0100 Subject: IETF WAS Re: [governance] Enhanced Cooperation (was Re: reality check on economics) In-Reply-To: <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I do agree with the last statement made by Nobert. It is not so easy to separate technical and policy issue as long as they build on each other. In terms of LDC´s context, I could not disagree with Michael on the representation part, as majority of them (as mentioned by him) rely on ITU at the ground reality. Furthermore, being a government official (to be part of ITU), lack of technicality, and most importantly permanent representation on specific technical issues are difficult, as most of the government positions are transferrable. Yes, those LDCs do not have strong private sector with technicality for active participation. The same applies to the civil societies there, but the good sign is there that the civil societies are more active in policy issues nowadays. So, there could a mix of these two from LDCs´ part of representation in the global platform. But, seems will require more time and patience to build up such teams from those countries. Best regards, Hakikur At 17:39 29-05-2012, Norbert Bollow wrote: >I wrote: > >> Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> > The problem is that for many "poor countries (LDC's)" there is no > >> > "private sector" in this area and for the most part no civil society > >> > with the expertise or the financial resources to participate in these > >> > discussions or to acquire the requisite expertise. So in the absence > >> > of governmental involvement there will be no involvement from those > >> > parts of the world at all. > >> > >> Do these governments participate in IETF and the other global Internet > >> governance structures where everyone is welcome to participate? > >> > >> If not, why not? > >Michael Gurstein replied: > > Norbert, as I said earlier I have no direct knowledge of the IETF, > > what I do know from my experience with various LDC's is that they > > are unlikely to have the expertise required for participation. > >Ok, but they could of course find one or more persons (of any >nationality) who have the necessary expertise, and hire them to >represent their interests. > >This doesn't have to cost a lot of money in relation to the budget >of a government of a poor LDC. Even if it's a single technically and >socially competent person who attends the face to face meetings, >particpates by email in between, and regularly visits the government >and other stakeholders in the country whose interests he represents >for information and discussions, a single person could IMO make a huge >difference! > >In fact, if that's still too expensive, the governments of several >LDCs with similar situations and similar interests could jointly >fund such a representative. > > > Further it would not be seen as a useful use of resources to acquire > > the expertise since the issues being addressed were not ones that > > would be appearing on the political/policy radar to those making > > such decisions. > >The key question here is IMO whether it is a correct assessment >that acquiring the expertise for participation (by hiring a >knowledgeable person who will inform and represent them) is not >a "useful use of resources" for them -- or is it maybe a key >problem that no-one has explained to them that they could >participate, and what the benefits of doing so would be? > > > Many/most would be relying on the ITU to guide them in these areas and to > > provide training as might be seen as necessary/useful. > >There might be a conflict of interests here, since ITU's strong >interest is to continue to be perceived as *the* relevant and >important institution. > > > So, what is necessary I think, is to recognize that in the absence of > > effective and visibly effective participation the political battles that > > will be fought in its absence are less likely to have generally useful and > > acceptable outcomes. > >I strongly agree with this assertion. > >We absolutely need what you very appropriately describe as "effective >and visibly effective participation" of all kinds of stakeholders, >including LDC governments. > > > For our purposes here it is eminently more desireable to separate out > > technical from policy issues surrounding EC and to ensure that the broadest > > possible consensus is achieved around the means for moving forward on both > > of these fronts since the Internet policy related issues at least, are > > starting to very quickly appear on the > political/policy radar in a number of > > LDC's--some for "good" reasons but many for less beneficent ones. > > > > Having an appropriately structured session discussing at least the policy > > aspects of EC at the IGF would I think, be an important beginning in this > > process. > >Are you sure that it is possible to "separate out technical from >policy issues"? > >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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Jun 5 06:56:29 2012 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:56:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to which one agrees before joining. One term is - no children under 13 allowed to join. Another one of those Terms is no nudity. Period. Facebook has taken down pics of mothers breastfeeding, children frolicking, all sorts of other non-controversial subjects. But that's their prerogative. It's their website. If you want to join Facebook, you follow their rules. You don't follow their rules, they throw you out, block your profile. And they can. It's not censorship or anything like that. It has nothing to do with the media, with what children can or cannot see, with "community standards" or global morality. It has to do with Mr. Zuckerberg and his staff, and what they want posted on their website and what they don't want posted on their website. I think people really forget that Facebook isn't a public common, but a privately owned website (despite the IPO, it's still a privately owned domain, just owned by more people now) Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. > > Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, > with children of all ages participating everyday. > > If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an > advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, > sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels > come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be > allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ > X-rated movie. > > And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed > around the world. > > I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the > basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. > > So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that > Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not > want him/ her to see? > > The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the > translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine > as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would > show it to her own young children. > > A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". > http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ > http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg > http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif > http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg > > > On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. It > is > > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international > > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing > > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence > > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their > own > > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was > > blocked. > > > > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from > the > > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. > But > > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, > > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot > show > > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of > > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking > old > > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures > > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were not > > wearing shirts. > > > > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of > > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the > > controversial pictures can be accessed > > here: > http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml > > > > Marília > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 > Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 > > Rui Correia > > > _______________ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jun 5 07:06:56 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:06:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacqueline Not sure if you are replying to what I said or making your own points. It would appear that the former is the case. I said Facebook is a "public place", you retorted that "it is not public, it is a private site". These are two entirely different issues. You cannot wonder into a members' club without someone checking whether you have the right to be in there. Yet any child can walk into a shop without being barred and queried about it. And the shop is private. So, let's us not muddle the issues here. Any child on the internet can go on Facbook and whether 13 or not, can create a profile and go there regularly. THAT is the point I was making. Rui On 5 June 2012 12:56, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to > which one agrees before joining. > > One term is  - no children under 13 allowed to join. Another one of those > Terms is no nudity. Period. Facebook has taken down pics of mothers > breastfeeding, children frolicking, all sorts of other > non-controversial subjects. But that's their prerogative. It's their > website.  If you want to join Facebook, you follow their rules. You don't > follow their rules, they throw you out, block your profile. And they can. > > It's not censorship or anything like that. It has nothing to do with the > media, with what children can or cannot see, with "community standards" or > global morality. It has to do with Mr. Zuckerberg and his staff, and what > they want posted on their website and what they don't want posted on their > website. > > I think people really forget that Facebook isn't a public common, but a > privately owned website (despite the IPO, it's still a privately owned > domain, just owned by more people now) > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. > (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >> I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. >> >> Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, >> with children of all ages participating everyday. >> >> If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an >> advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, >> sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels >> come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be >> allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ >> X-rated movie. >> >> And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed >> around the world. >> >> I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the >> basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. >> >> So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that >> Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not >> want him/ her to see? >> >> The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the >> translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine >> as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would >> show it to her own young children. >> >> A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ >> http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg >> http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif >> http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg >> >> >> On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> > >> > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. It >> > is >> > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international >> > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing >> > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence >> > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their >> > own >> > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was >> > blocked. >> > >> > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from >> > the >> > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. >> > But >> > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, >> > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot >> > show >> > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of >> > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking >> > old >> > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures >> > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were >> > not >> > wearing shirts. >> > >> > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of >> > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the >> > controversial pictures can be accessed >> > >> > here: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> >> Rui Correia >> >> >> _______________ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 Angola +244 92 148 6391 Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 Rui Correia _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 07:08:44 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:08:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Following up on Jacqueline's post, Facebook is indeed a private space (although some of its content is accessible publicly, depending of the privacy settings of the user) and its Terms of Service contain what she says. In a certain way, it could be argued that such platforms become a sort of cross-border "digital space" or even "digital territory" and that their Terms of Service represent somehow the "Law" of that space, with important legal consequences. An interesting topic that we are following at the Internet & Jurisdiction project :(www.internetjurisdiction.net). It is a good opportunity to advertise that there is currently a voting exercise allowing all Facebook members to vote on the modification of their Privacy Rules. See: https://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/app_130362963766777 B. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to > which one agrees before joining. > > One term is - no children under 13 allowed to join. Another one of those > Terms is no nudity. Period. Facebook has taken down pics of mothers > breastfeeding, children frolicking, all sorts of other > non-controversial subjects. But that's their prerogative. It's their > website. If you want to join Facebook, you follow their rules. You don't > follow their rules, they throw you out, block your profile. And they can. > > It's not censorship or anything like that. It has nothing to do with the > media, with what children can or cannot see, with "community standards" or > global morality. It has to do with Mr. Zuckerberg and his staff, and what > they want posted on their website and what they don't want posted on their > website. > > I think people really forget that Facebook isn't a public common, but a > privately owned website (despite the IPO, it's still a privately owned > domain, just owned by more people now) > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > >> I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. >> >> Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, >> with children of all ages participating everyday. >> >> If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an >> advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, >> sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels >> come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be >> allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ >> X-rated movie. >> >> And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed >> around the world. >> >> I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the >> basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. >> >> So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that >> Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not >> want him/ her to see? >> >> The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the >> translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine >> as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would >> show it to her own young children. >> >> A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ >> http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg >> http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif >> http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg >> >> >> On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> > >> > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. >> It is >> > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international >> > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing >> > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence >> > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their >> own >> > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was >> > blocked. >> > >> > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from >> the >> > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. >> But >> > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, >> > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot >> show >> > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of >> > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking >> old >> > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures >> > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were >> not >> > wearing shirts. >> > >> > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of >> > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the >> > controversial pictures can be accessed >> > here: >> http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> >> Rui Correia >> >> >> _______________ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 5 07:33:43 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:33:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU role regarding ECTF (was Re: IETF...) In-Reply-To: (message from Hakikur Rahman on Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:50:33 +0100) References: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120605113343.45D6B819F@quill.bollow.ch> Hakikur Rahman wrote: > In terms of LDC´s context, I could not > disagree with Michael on the representation part, > as majority of them (as mentioned by him) rely on > ITU at the ground reality. Furthermore, being a > government official (to be part of ITU), lack of > technicality, and most importantly permanent > representation on specific technical issues are > difficult, as most of the government positions > are transferrable. In regard to that "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" vision that I have been talking about (modeled on IETF), could you envision ITU taking on a capacity building role especially for governments, helping them to overcome the challenges of effective participation? 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jun 5 08:10:39 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:10:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Message-ID: I am pleased to share with the list launch of the CitizenLab's Cyber Dialogue blog. In an inaugural post titled Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics, Chris Bronk, the Baker Institute Fellow in Information Technology Policy at Rice University and one of the participants of the Cyber Dialogue 2012 conference, discusses the politics of the Flame malware, which has targeted computers in the Middle East. As security experts deconstruct Flame over the coming days and explain what the malware can and cannot do, Bronk argues that "it is also important to consider the politics of Flame, as they matter as much if not more". http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2012/05/cyber-intrigue-the-flame-malware-international-politics/ Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Posted on May 31, 2012 Chris Bronk, a Fellow in Information Technology Policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University. First there was Stuxnet, a piece of computer code that is widely believed to have been specifically designed to instruct computers in the Iranian nuclear enrichment program to damage centrifuges necessary to produce fissile material and identified in 2010. Next, in 2011, came Duqu, a computer worm which appears to hold the capacity to remove and delete data from infected computer hosts. Now, the computer security community has its latest item of study, Flame, yet another piece of software designed to purloin data, perhaps including via the clandestine operation of onboard web cams found in many of the world’s personal computers. Over the coming days and weeks, security experts will deconstruct Flame and explain what it can and can’t do. This work ongoing, it is also important to consider the politics of Flame, as they matter as much if not more. I suggest considering seven interrelated points on Flame that stretch from its discovery to the blitz of awareness regarding its existence. 1. News reports identify instances of Flame on computers in the Middle East, from Iran to the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Flame was quite possibly the malware detected in the Iranian petroleum refining and export complex at Kharg Island. 2. According to some reports, the Iranians brought Flame to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a body of the United Nations concerned with international telecom regulations issues, but interested in a broader role in Internet governance. 3. ITU officials tapped Kaspersky Lab, a Russian security company, to study Flame. The ITU could have shared Flame’s code with multiple security firms, the international Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) community, or academic research institutions that study malware code and produce formal reports and proceedings on their analysis, but chose instead to use Kaspersky. 4. Kaspersky, based in Moscow, put out an FAQ on its findings on its website, not a full malware analysis report. While the FAQ is informative, it does not methodically walk through Flame’s software code and explain what subcomponents of the software do. Security researchers aren’t given the ability to see the proof of their work. 5. The Laboratory of Cryptography and Systems Security (CrySyS Lab) at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics did conduct a thorough analysis of sKyWIper, which Kaspersky later announced was an exact match to Flame and also the software identified as Flamer by the Iranian national CERT. 6. Now the politics. Once the Kaspersky press machine kicked on, the Iranians were quick to castigate Israel as Flame’s source. Arguments are now circulating on the Web that Flame’s code was written during the Jerusalem time working hours and not written on days of the Jewish Sabbath. Anyone who has developed software knows that working hours usually translate to whenever the coders feel like working, and often over very long stretches of time. This seems to be a stretch. 7. Now the ITU is about to issue its first ever cyber warning. This is advance of the organization’s major World Conference on International Communications which will take place in Dubai in December. The Dubai conference will detail how the ITU intends to expand its role in international Internet governance, a job currently undertaken by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of Marina del Rey, California, a private, non-profit corporation. All of this adds up to a story that is much more about international politics surrounding a piece of malware than the malware itself. Thanks to Stuxnet, the Internet Freedom agenda, and the Arab Spring, cyberspace is now political space and matters a great deal in international relations. About Chris Bronk Chris Bronk is a Fellow in Information Technology Policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University. He previously served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State on assignments both overseas and in Washington, D.C. His last assignment was in the Office of eDiplomacy, the department’s internal think tank on information technology, knowledge management, computer security and interagency collaboration. Since arriving at Rice, Bronk has divided his attention among a number of areas, including information security, technology for immigration management, broadband policy, Web 2.0 governance and the militarization of cyberspace. He teaches on the intersection of computing and politics in Rice’s George R. Brown School of Engineering. Holding a PhD from The Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Bronk also studied international relations at Oxford University and received a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3565 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 hakik at hakik.org Tue Jun 5 09:02:50 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:02:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU role regarding ECTF (was Re: IETF...) In-Reply-To: <20120605113343.45D6B819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <999E649C059F48358F587715EE298DD8@UserVAIO> <20120529163902.E0C5D1F5A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605113343.45D6B819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In course of time, yes, IMHO I could see, but as long as the capacity development goes to a target cell of those countries, responsible to support the model. Best regards, Hakikur At 12:33 05-06-2012, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > In terms of LDC´s context, I could not > > disagree with Michael on the representation part, > > as majority of them (as mentioned by him) rely on > > ITU at the ground reality. Furthermore, being a > > government official (to be part of ITU), lack of > > technicality, and most importantly permanent > > representation on specific technical issues are > > difficult, as most of the government positions > > are transferrable. > >In regard to that "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" vision that I have >been talking about (modeled on IETF), could you envision ITU taking on >a capacity building role especially for governments, helping them to >overcome the challenges of effective participation? > >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 jcurran at istaff.org Tue Jun 5 09:31:22 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:31:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <"ff.o rg"@mac.com> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > John Curran wrote: >> That may be true, but that is a facile assessment of the situation as it >> considers the USG as one cohesive entity. > > Yes, sure, but I'm talking here about an emotional assessment of the > situation that inevitably happens. This is a reality that cannot be > changed by arguments based on in-depth analysis that differentiates > between different parts of the US government. Agreed; emotions and perceptions are powerful forces that should not be discounted in these discussions. > In addition I would insist that CIR management should be designed to > be so robust that I should not have to trust any particular part of a > country's government more than what is justifiable on the basis of the > overall track record of that country's political and governmental > system. That seems that a worthy goal for CIR management 4.0... I simply wish it to be recognized that we've already undergone significant evolution in CIR management over the years, from totally done under USG contract with no external input to a multi-stakeholder approach which operates predominantly free from USG political interference (despite its vestigial IANA functions contract to the US DoC.) I am confident that continued evolution of the current approach is both possible and likely, but far less sanguine that any new system will ultimately prove as safe from political influence. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Any resemblance to other people's views, living or dead, is entirely coincidental. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 09:43:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:43:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FCE0CE5.1020101@cafonso.ca> Robert, your message seems empty (I mean, no content). Are you using some encryption? --c.a. On 06/05/2012 09:10 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jun 5 09:47:45 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:47:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Message-ID: <965CA170-6B5A-467F-809D-0F1DF38CB8AB@privaterra.org> (resending) I am pleased to share with the list launch of the CitizenLab's Cyber Dialogue blog. In an inaugural post titled Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics, Chris Bronk, the Baker Institute Fellow in Information Technology Policy at Rice University and one of the participants of the Cyber Dialogue 2012 conference, discusses the politics of the Flame malware, which has targeted computers in the Middle East. As security experts deconstruct Flame over the coming days and explain what the malware can and cannot do, Bronk argues that "it is also important to consider the politics of Flame, as they matter as much if not more". http://www.cyberdialogue.ca/2012/05/cyber-intrigue-the-flame-malware-international-politics/ Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Posted on May 31, 2012 Chris Bronk, a Fellow in Information Technology Policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University. First there was Stuxnet, a piece of computer code that is widely believed to have been specifically designed to instruct computers in the Iranian nuclear enrichment program to damage centrifuges necessary to produce fissile material and identified in 2010. Next, in 2011, came Duqu, a computer worm which appears to hold the capacity to remove and delete data from infected computer hosts. Now, the computer security community has its latest item of study, Flame, yet another piece of software designed to purloin data, perhaps including via the clandestine operation of onboard web cams found in many of the world’s personal computers. Over the coming days and weeks, security experts will deconstruct Flame and explain what it can and can’t do. This work ongoing, it is also important to consider the politics of Flame, as they matter as much if not more. I suggest considering seven interrelated points on Flame that stretch from its discovery to the blitz of awareness regarding its existence. 1. News reports identify instances of Flame on computers in the Middle East, from Iran to the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Flame was quite possibly the malware detected in the Iranian petroleum refining and export complex at Kharg Island. 2. According to some reports, the Iranians brought Flame to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a body of the United Nations concerned with international telecom regulations issues, but interested in a broader role in Internet governance. 3. ITU officials tapped Kaspersky Lab, a Russian security company, to study Flame. The ITU could have shared Flame’s code with multiple security firms, the international Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) community, or academic research institutions that study malware code and produce formal reports and proceedings on their analysis, but chose instead to use Kaspersky. 4. Kaspersky, based in Moscow, put out an FAQ on its findings on its website, not a full malware analysis report. While the FAQ is informative, it does not methodically walk through Flame’s software code and explain what subcomponents of the software do. Security researchers aren’t given the ability to see the proof of their work. 5. The Laboratory of Cryptography and Systems Security (CrySyS Lab) at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics did conduct a thorough analysis of sKyWIper, which Kaspersky later announced was an exact match to Flame and also the software identified as Flamer by the Iranian national CERT. 6. Now the politics. Once the Kaspersky press machine kicked on, the Iranians were quick to castigate Israel as Flame’s source. Arguments are now circulating on the Web that Flame’s code was written during the Jerusalem time working hours and not written on days of the Jewish Sabbath. Anyone who has developed software knows that working hours usually translate to whenever the coders feel like working, and often over very long stretches of time. This seems to be a stretch. 7. Now the ITU is about to issue its first ever cyber warning. This is advance of the organization’s major World Conference on International Communications which will take place in Dubai in December. The Dubai conference will detail how the ITU intends to expand its role in international Internet governance, a job currently undertaken by the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) of Marina del Rey, California, a private, non-profit corporation. All of this adds up to a story that is much more about international politics surrounding a piece of malware than the malware itself. Thanks to Stuxnet, the Internet Freedom agenda, and the Arab Spring, cyberspace is now political space and matters a great deal in international relations. About Chris Bronk Chris Bronk is a Fellow in Information Technology Policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University. He previously served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State on assignments both overseas and in Washington, D.C. His last assignment was in the Office of eDiplomacy, the department’s internal think tank on information technology, knowledge management, computer security and interagency collaboration. Since arriving at Rice, Bronk has divided his attention among a number of areas, including information security, technology for immigration management, broadband policy, Web 2.0 governance and the militarization of cyberspace. He teaches on the intersection of computing and politics in Rice’s George R. Brown School of Engineering. Holding a PhD from The Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Bronk also studied international relations at Oxford University and received a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 09:48:56 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:48:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics In-Reply-To: <4FCE0CE5.1020101@cafonso.ca> References: <4FCE0CE5.1020101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <25AB1606-BF15-4D80-8CCA-3465F51C6F3D@privaterra.org> c.a., I normally digitally sign my message with a x509 cert. Will resend the post without a digital signature.. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-06-05, at 9:43 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Robert, your message seems empty (I mean, no content). Are you using > some encryption? > > --c.a. > > On 06/05/2012 09:10 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jun 5 10:00:00 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:00:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics In-Reply-To: <4FCE0CE5.1020101@cafonso.ca> References: <4FCE0CE5.1020101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <30594775-A477-45A4-AF2A-4A9988DCFE61@digsys.bg> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Robert, your message seems empty (I mean, no content). Are you using > some encryption? It shows empty in Thunderbird, but was readable in OS X Mail.app. The message is indeed digitally signed. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jun 5 10:12:44 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:12:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Message-ID: <1362801390-1338905552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-383179551-@b3.c5.bise6.blackberry> Curious to find out which email clients were able (or not) to read the first, digitally signed message I sent today about malware + intl. Politics :) Robert ------Original Message------ From: Daniel Kalchev To: Internet Governance Caucus To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics Sent: Jun 5, 2012 10:00 AM On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Robert, your message seems empty (I mean, no content). Are you using > some encryption? It shows empty in Thunderbird, but was readable in OS X Mail.app. The message is indeed digitally signed. Daniel Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. -- Robert Guerra Phone/Cell +1 202 905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 5 10:48:56 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:48:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from John Curran on Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:31:22 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <"ff.o rg"@mac.com> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120605144856.5C53A819F@quill.bollow.ch> I wrote: > > In addition I would insist that CIR management should be designed to > > be so robust that I should not have to trust any particular part of a > > country's government more than what is justifiable on the basis of the > > overall track record of that country's political and governmental > > system. John Curran replied: > That seems that a worthy goal for CIR management 4.0... I simply wish > it to be recognized that we've already undergone significant evolution > in CIR management over the years, from totally done under USG contract > with no external input to a multi-stakeholder approach which operates > predominantly free from USG political interference (despite its vestigial > IANA functions contract to the US DoC.) ACK (hereby recognized and acknowledged). > I am confident that continued evolution of the current approach is > both possible and likely, but far less sanguine that any new system > will ultimately prove as safe from political influence. Strongly agreed. We need to tread carefully here. 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 10:59:08 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:59:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to > which one agrees before joining. The double standard that applies to platforms such as FB and Twitter is very interesting. When they are used in contexts such as the arab spring or the iranian revolution as platforms to fight and overthrown governments that we (the West) do not appreciate, then western governments, the media and civil society start to emphasize the public role of these private platforms, as enablers of free expression and political rights. When Obama called Twitter to postpone the maintenance of their website, so that protesters were not deprived of the platform on a crucial moment of the revolution, everybody seemed to be ok with the intrusion of the political interests of a particular government in the work methods of a private company. Out of these specific contexts above, the dominant rethoric implies that FB is a simple private platform, as "innocent" and unimportant to world politics as if it were still merely a collection of "faces" and "book of contacts" of one's best friends. The platform is more than that. The fact that it is becoming so important to interpersonal communication, expression, and political mobilization in a cross-border fashion makes it a private-owned platform of public interest and it must be treated accordingly. Zuckerberg and his best friends should not be entitled to make crucial decisions all alone and to enforce regulation that touches upon privacy and FoE, to name a few, as they do, across-borders. There should be mechanisms of accountability. FB grew in importance and owners' bank accounts grew in zeros. This success comes with a price: higher standards of transparency and accountability. As was said on the other thread, the more the platform becomes widely used for worldwide communication, the narrower should be the freedom of FB board to do whatever they like without democratic ways of discussion. When it comes to unilateral contracts, free will to negotiate is hampered. And when it comes to platforms of strong monopolistic tendency, such as FB, accepting these unilateral contracts (terms of use) can be far from being an option, but a pre-rquisite to fully engage on communication in the public sphere. Marília > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > >> I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. >> >> Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, >> with children of all ages participating everyday. >> >> If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an >> advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, >> sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels >> come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be >> allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ >> X-rated movie. >> >> And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed >> around the world. >> >> I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the >> basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. >> >> So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that >> Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not >> want him/ her to see? >> >> The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the >> translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine >> as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would >> show it to her own young children. >> >> A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ >> http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg >> http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif >> http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg >> >> >> On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> > >> > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. >> It is >> > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international >> > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing >> > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence >> > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their >> own >> > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was >> > blocked. >> > >> > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from >> the >> > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. >> But >> > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, >> > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot >> show >> > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of >> > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking >> old >> > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures >> > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were >> not >> > wearing shirts. >> > >> > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of >> > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the >> > controversial pictures can be accessed >> > here: >> http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml >> > >> > Marília >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > FGV Direito Rio >> > >> > Center for Technology and Society >> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 >> >> Rui Correia >> >> >> _______________ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jun 5 11:01:44 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:01:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics In-Reply-To: <1362801390-1338905552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-383179551-@b3.c5.bise6.blackberry> References: <1362801390-1338905552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-383179551-@b3.c5.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <4FCE1F58.3050708@cafonso.ca> Sometimes I cannot read Malcom's msgs in Thunderbird either. But if I open the "View msg source" option, I do read everything, including the long certificate key attachment at the end. --c.a. On 06/05/2012 11:12 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Curious to find out which email clients were able (or not) to read the first, digitally signed message I sent today about malware + intl. Politics :) > > Robert > ------Original Message------ > From: Daniel Kalchev > To: Internet Governance Caucus > To: Carlos A. Afonso > Cc: Robert Guerra > Subject: Re: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics > Sent: Jun 5, 2012 10:00 AM > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Robert, your message seems empty (I mean, no content). Are you using >> some encryption? > > > It shows empty in Thunderbird, but was readable in OS X Mail.app. The message is indeed digitally signed. > > Daniel > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. > -- > Robert Guerra > Phone/Cell +1 202 905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 11:27:04 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:27:04 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > > So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that > Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not > want him/ her to see? > Are you somehow suggesting that FB board has the ability to understand and translate into their policies the will of parents coming from different countries and cultures when it comes to educating children and keeping them safe? This debate is difficult even in relatively homogeneous regions, imagine in a diverse cultural environment... And, as far as I understand, it should be up to the parents to decide when their children are mature enough to use the Internet and to use platforms such as FB. A young children should not be left alone online, not in FB or in the public internet. FB is not a nanny. > > The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the > translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine > as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would > show it to her own young children. > I think you are wrong, as many women took their children to the walk, as you see on the second picture you posted. I personally would have no problem to show a child the pictures you mentioned below as examples from the slut walk. Some depict nudity (breasts) with a purpose, which is not sexual, by the way. In oder to protect a child from truly sexual images, in my city, I would have to protect her from newspapers, news stands on the streets (with their playboy-like magazine advertisement), MTV (with sexual video clips being shown all day long), movies, carnival in Rio (nude woman dancing samba being transmitted live on TV). And, of course, I would have to run away from shopping centers and the metro, where I occasionally see women with boobs off breastfeeding babies. With so much running and interdiction, I would raise a neurotic, not a child. Marília > > A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". > http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ > http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg > http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif > http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg > > > On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. It > is > > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international > > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing > > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence > > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their > own > > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was > > blocked. > > > > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from > the > > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. > But > > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, > > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot > show > > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of > > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking > old > > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures > > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were not > > wearing shirts. > > > > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of > > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the > > controversial pictures can be accessed > > here: > http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml > > > > Marília > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 > Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 > > Rui Correia > > > _______________ > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Jun 5 11:37:09 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:37:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EBDE8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> But Marilia, Facebook only has ~ 1bn users. Meaning <20% market share, if we count every person on the planet as the relevant market. So, they're not even in a dominant position, and far from a monopoly. ; ) And hence no need for public policy concern. (Hope you see I am joking). Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Marilia Maciel [mariliamaciel at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 10:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Jacqueline Morris > wrote: Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to which one agrees before joining. The double standard that applies to platforms such as FB and Twitter is very interesting. When they are used in contexts such as the arab spring or the iranian revolution as platforms to fight and overthrown governments that we (the West) do not appreciate, then western governments, the media and civil society start to emphasize the public role of these private platforms, as enablers of free expression and political rights. When Obama called Twitter to postpone the maintenance of their website, so that protesters were not deprived of the platform on a crucial moment of the revolution, everybody seemed to be ok with the intrusion of the political interests of a particular government in the work methods of a private company. Out of these specific contexts above, the dominant rethoric implies that FB is a simple private platform, as "innocent" and unimportant to world politics as if it were still merely a collection of "faces" and "book of contacts" of one's best friends. The platform is more than that. The fact that it is becoming so important to interpersonal communication, expression, and political mobilization in a cross-border fashion makes it a private-owned platform of public interest and it must be treated accordingly. Zuckerberg and his best friends should not be entitled to make crucial decisions all alone and to enforce regulation that touches upon privacy and FoE, to name a few, as they do, across-borders. There should be mechanisms of accountability. FB grew in importance and owners' bank accounts grew in zeros. This success comes with a price: higher standards of transparency and accountability. As was said on the other thread, the more the platform becomes widely used for worldwide communication, the narrower should be the freedom of FB board to do whatever they like without democratic ways of discussion. When it comes to unilateral contracts, free will to negotiate is hampered. And when it comes to platforms of strong monopolistic tendency, such as FB, accepting these unilateral contracts (terms of use) can be far from being an option, but a pre-rquisite to fully engage on communication in the public sphere. Marília On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia > wrote: I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, with children of all ages participating everyday. If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ X-rated movie. And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed around the world. I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not want him/ her to see? The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would show it to her own young children. A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. It is > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an international > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their own > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was > blocked. > > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from the > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average citizen. But > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot show > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also blocking old > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and pictures > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were not > wearing shirts. > > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the > controversial pictures can be accessed > here: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml > > Marília > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 Rui Correia _______________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 5 11:47:15 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:47:15 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Jun 5, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > David Conrad wrote: >> Out of curiosity, what would constitute "being trustworthy" outside of the >> technical and externally verifiability of key integrity? > > Technical and external verifiability of key integrity in a way that > is in addition geographically distributed so that the system would > still work reliably if any particular country and all people in it > were to suddenly turn rogue. Given it is possible for the Trusted Community Representatives to recreate the private key, this capability already theoretically exists, modulo the risk of kidnapping/assassination of TCRs by the "rogue" country. Ignoring that, there are technical issues relating to the size of signatures that make supporting multiple keys as you suggest quite challenging. Revising DNSSEC to add this capability would likely be quite expensive and I suspect the cost/benefit analysis would imply it would be difficult to get the technical community to revise the specifications, update implementations, and deploy the new code, particularly as all that effort would need to be done to address a non-technical consideration that most in the technical community would view (rightly or wrongly) as political window dressing. However, I might suggest the focus on DNSSEC in this regard is misplaced. As mentioned in a previous note, DNSSEC merely provides the capability to verify that a DNS response hasn't been modified from the point at which the data was signed by the private key holder to the point where it was validated (typically by ISPs). The data first must be created before it can be signed. Once signed it still must be published. Even if the US were to go "rogue", root servers and caches outside the US would hold the pre-rogue root zone and it would be straightforward (technically at least) for a new signing facility to be established in Geneva, Beijing, or wherever else is felt to be more trustworthy. The real problems are in how the data to be signed are created, edited, distributed, and published. 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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 5 14:47:27 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:47:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Asking the USG to release documents Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> We've discovered that there is an ITU document known as TD-64 which compiles all the proposals on the table from the WCIT-12 Council Working Group. We have issued a blog post calling on the USG to make this document public. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/06/05/we-want-td64-itu-transparency-begins-at-home/ I'd like to generate some pressure on USG to release this doc. Actually I think ISOC also has access to this doc and my sources indicate that they could release it to their members. If you are an ISOC member I would encourage you to approach ISOC-central about this. 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Jun 5 14:55:38 2012 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:55:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > When Obama called Twitter to postpone the maintenance of their website, so > that protesters were not deprived of the platform on a crucial moment of > the revolution, everybody seemed to be ok with the intrusion of the > political interests of a particular government in the work methods of a > private company. > Actually, I wasn't. But if the owners were willing to comply with his request, and the US govt didn't strong-arm them into making the decision, I didn't think that I had any standing to protest too loudly about the interference of government in the running of a private business. I did grumble, though. > > Zuckerberg and his best friends should not be entitled to make crucial > decisions all alone and to enforce regulation that touches upon privacy and > FoE, to name a few, as they do, across-borders. There should be mechanisms > of accountability. > Why? They created it, they own it. It's theirs. They could shut it down tomorrow, if they wanted to walk away from it. This is the problem with people allowing themselves to grow dependent on privately owned networks. Of course, if it's so vitally important to communication, do like governments do when they want something private to be used for the national good - nationalise it. It can be bought. > FB grew in importance and owners' bank accounts grew in zeros. This > success comes with a price: higher standards of transparency and > accountability. > Again, why? Bigger companies have higher standards of transparency and accountability? Not really. A billion dollar company is subject to the same laws of transparency and accountability and disclosure as a million dollar company. At least in my country. There's laws for public companies, no matter the size. > As was said on the other thread, the more the platform becomes widely used > for worldwide communication, the narrower should be the freedom of FB board > to do whatever they like without democratic ways of discussion. > But again, why? It's a platform owned by a publicly traded company. Unless they break laws, under what authority can anyone tell the Board - "you cannot run your own company as you see fit"? What would the investors do, if the Board says - well, this step is in the shareholders' best interest, but these people say we cannot do that, so we won't act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. As far as I know that's reason for shareholders to remove the Board! Facebook has its own "democratic ways of discussion" - there's "consultation" going on now on Facebook about the new terms of service and privacy policy. > > When it comes to unilateral contracts, free will to negotiate is hampered. > And when it comes to platforms of strong monopolistic tendency, such as FB, > accepting these unilateral contracts (terms of use) can be far from being > an option, but a pre-rquisite to fully engage on communication in the > public sphere. > Yep, it's a take it or leave it proposition. Just like Windows, or Office or pretty much any software, service, association, club, etc. Either you agree to their terms, or you don't join/use/participate. And I don't have a problem with that. I know many friends and family who have left Facebook, or never joined, and engage in communication quite happily on many of the other social networks, as well as via other tools. One does not HAVE to be on Facebook. Billions of people aren't. A good 70% of my students each semester aren't, I make them join as it's part of the class, but many delete the account after the class. They just don't want to be on. And that's fine. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 15:14:50 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:14:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Asking the USG to release documents In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I am an ISOC member and I haven't the faintest idea who to ask. Serving members with documents isn't one of their normal activities. avri On 5 Jun 2012, at 14:47, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > We've discovered that there is an ITU document known as TD-64 which compiles all the proposals on the table from the WCIT-12 Council Working Group. We have issued a blog post calling on the USG to make this document public. > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/06/05/we-want-td64-itu-transparency-begins-at-home/ > > I'd like to generate some pressure on USG to release this doc. Actually I think ISOC also has access to this doc and my sources indicate that they could release it to their members. If you are an ISOC member I would encourage you to approach ISOC-central about this. > > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 15:57:09 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:57:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] Asking the USG to release documents In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, I am ISOC member, I am co-organizer of I and II Ukrainian IGF (2010, 2011), we organized EuroDIG presentation in Ukrainian Parliament (11 April 2012). Our main question - who has to represent Ukraine on official level at EuroDIG (as well as IGF, GAC ICANN and so on)? No answer at all. But now we have information about very active participation of our National Commission on Communication and Information Society Head in WSIS in Geneva in May. What did he say? With whom he discussed Ukrainian position on IG? "Chairman of the NCCIR made a speech with a progressive vision of field development at the World Summit on the Information Society" - http://en.nkrz.gov.ua/ We do our best to receive answers to our questions in Ukraine, and we will highly appreciate any help from abroad. And of course we support your proposition on transparency with TD-64. More over, I propose to organize IGF-UA III on the next day after ITU Regional Forum on Current Regulatory Issues in the Area of Telecommunications and Radio Frequency Resource Usage for CIS Countries and Europe that will take place 11-13 September 2012 in Kyiv. I suppose to hear quite different words from the same persons for ITU Regional Forum comparing with IGF-UA. Best regards, Oksana 2012/6/5 Milton L Mueller : > > > We've discovered that there is an ITU document known as TD-64 which compiles > all the proposals on the table from the WCIT-12 Council Working Group. We > have issued a blog post calling on the USG to make this document public. > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/06/05/we-want-td64-itu-transparency-begins-at-home/ > > > > I'd like to generate some pressure on USG to release this doc. Actually I > think ISOC also has access to this doc and my sources indicate that they > could release it to their members. If you are an ISOC member I would > encourage you to approach ISOC-central about this. > > > > > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 16:31:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:31:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Jacqueline Morris < > jam at jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > >> Facebook isn't public. It's a private site with terms and conditions to >> which one agrees before joining. > > > The double standard that applies to platforms such as FB and Twitter is > very interesting. When they are used in contexts such as the arab spring or > the iranian revolution as platforms to fight and overthrown governments > that we (the West) do not appreciate, then western governments, the media > and civil society start to emphasize the public role of these private > platforms, as enablers of free expression and political rights. When Obama > called Twitter to postpone the maintenance of their website, so that > protesters were not deprived of the platform on a crucial moment of the > revolution, everybody seemed to be ok with the intrusion of the political > interests of a particular government in the work methods of a private > company. > > Out of these specific contexts above, the dominant rethoric implies that > FB is a simple private platform, as "innocent" and unimportant to world > politics as if it were still merely a collection of "faces" and "book of > contacts" of one's best friends. The platform is more than that. The fact > that it is becoming so important to interpersonal communication, > expression, and political mobilization in a cross-border fashion makes it a > private-owned platform of public interest and it must be treated > accordingly. Zuckerberg and his best friends should not be entitled to make > crucial decisions all alone and to enforce regulation that touches upon > privacy and FoE, to name a few, as they do, across-borders. There should be > mechanisms of accountability. FB grew in importance and owners' bank > accounts grew in zeros. This success comes with a price: higher standards > of transparency and accountability. As was said on the other thread, the > more the platform becomes widely used for worldwide communication, the > narrower should be the freedom of FB board to do whatever they like without > democratic ways of discussion. > > When it comes to unilateral contracts, free will to negotiate is hampered. > And when it comes to platforms of strong monopolistic tendency, such as FB, > accepting these unilateral contracts (terms of use) can be far from being > an option, but a pre-rquisite to fully engage on communication in the > public sphere. > As Bertrand pointed out Facebook is inviting input in the Facebook Site Governance Vote Site, see: https://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance/app_130362963766777 Voting Started on June 1, 2012 and ends in June 8, 2012 > > Marília > > > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >>> I tried to go through the posts, but found very little of any use. >>> >>> Perhaps most people are gogetting that Facebook is a public place, >>> with children of all ages participating everyday. >>> >>> If you watch tv, whatever you watch comes with an age rating and an >>> advisory block to the parent/ adult about language, nudity, violence, >>> sex, etc. That person can then act accordingly. Subscription channels >>> come with parental controI mechanismc. In a cinema, you will not be >>> allowed in with your 7-year-old in tow to watch an adult/ R-rated/ >>> X-rated movie. >>> >>> And as someone has been trying to point out all along, FB is viewed >>> around the world. >>> >>> I am against censorship of all sorts, but we seem to be forgetting the >>> basic test of 'shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre'. >>> >>> So, for all of you shouting sensorship, how do you suggest that >>> Facebook protect a young child from images that HIS PARENTS would not >>> want him/ her to see? >>> >>> The last image below says "I am a slut" (in the context of the >>> translation of "Slut Walk"/ Marcha das Vadias"). It is perfecty fine >>> as an instrument of protest - but I doubt that woman in picture would >>> show it to her own young children. >>> >>> A few examples from the "Marchas das Vadias". >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/juperestrelo/7288652922/ >>> http://www.bluebus.com.br/afotos/marcha_das_vadias_censurada_facebook.jpg >>> http://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/marcha-das-vadias1.gif >>> http://blogay.blogfolha.uol.com.br/files/2012/05/151836-970x600-1.jpg >>> >>> >>> On 30 May 2012 17:32, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> > >>> > Last weekend a feminist march took place in several cities in Brazil. >>> It is >>> > called "March of Bitches" (Marcha das Vadias) and it is an >>> international >>> > movement that was born in Canada. Some women decided to March wearing >>> > lingerie or with naked breasts as a way to call attention to violence >>> > against women, women's liberty and sexual rights and they posted their >>> own >>> > pictures in Facebook. Their pictures were removed and their profile was >>> > blocked. >>> > >>> > So, let me get this right: Brazilian media publishes the pictures from >>> the >>> > protest, in a sign that this would not at all hurt the average >>> citizen. But >>> > Facebook (the platform where most of the use of the Internet is, >>> > unfortunately, converging to) gets to decide what people can or cannot >>> show >>> > in their albums; what is pornography, and where to draw the line of >>> > morality. It has been reported in Brazil that Facebook is also >>> blocking old >>> > pictures from well known artists that display naked people, and >>> pictures >>> > from little girls aged 3-4 posted by their parents, because they were >>> not >>> > wearing shirts. >>> > >>> > This seems a very undemocratic, opaque and potentially dangerous way of >>> > conducting Internet governance. The news (in Portuguese) and one of the >>> > controversial pictures can be accessed >>> > here: >>> http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/tec/1097488-facebook-bloqueia-usuarias-que-aparecem-seminuas-em-fotos-da-marcha-das-vadias.shtml >>> > >>> > Marília >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> > FGV Direito Rio >>> > >>> > Center for Technology and Society >>> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> _________________________ >>> Mobile Number in Angola +244 92 148 6391 >>> Número de Telemóvel em Angola +244 92 148 6391 >>> >>> Rui Correia >>> >>> >>> _______________ >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jun 5 16:30:05 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:30:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Asking the USG to release documents In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2183973 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 18:47:27 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >We've discovered that there is an ITU document known as TD-64 which >compiles all the proposals on the table from the WCIT-12 Council >Working Group. Sure you've got the right number? Here's a copy of the ITU index (ps: TD means Temporary Document) where TD 64 looks interesting but your description fits TD 62 better. [ TD 64-PLEN ] 2012-05-08 Anticipated final draft of the future ITRs [ TD 63-PLEN ] 2012-04-26 Draft structure of the revised ITRs [ TD 62-PLEN ] 2012-04-30 Draft compilation of proposals with options for revisions to the ITRs [ TD 52-PLEN ] 2012-03-13 Draft compilation of options -- 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 admin at bango.org.bb Tue Jun 5 16:35:31 2012 From: admin at bango.org.bb (admin at bango.org.bb) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:35:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46AF8D8CED43400E91969F9476E1BE5F@BANGO> FB is as much a public space as it can be a private space. No different from walking down the street, which is public, but homes are private. However, there are establishments that cater to the public which can be deemed as public space although it may be a private business. The test is, where public liability applies to the owner, it is a public place. Where trespass applies to the public it is a private place. Hence, in terms of fb, it all depends on your privacy settings or the format you choose to use, such as pages or groups. Groups can be closed or open but pages are open to the public view. Your traffic emanates from your friends and in some cases, friends of friends. Choose your friends carefully. ROK From: Jacqueline Morris Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 2:55 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Marilia Maciel Subject: Re: [governance] About Facebook blocked and content removed in Brazil On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: When Obama called Twitter to postpone the maintenance of their website, so that protesters were not deprived of the platform on a crucial moment of the revolution, everybody seemed to be ok with the intrusion of the political interests of a particular government in the work methods of a private company. Actually, I wasn't. But if the owners were willing to comply with his request, and the US govt didn't strong-arm them into making the decision, I didn't think that I had any standing to protest too loudly about the interference of government in the running of a private business. I did grumble, though. Zuckerberg and his best friends should not be entitled to make crucial decisions all alone and to enforce regulation that touches upon privacy and FoE, to name a few, as they do, across-borders. There should be mechanisms of accountability. Why? They created it, they own it. It's theirs. They could shut it down tomorrow, if they wanted to walk away from it. This is the problem with people allowing themselves to grow dependent on privately owned networks. Of course, if it's so vitally important to communication, do like governments do when they want something private to be used for the national good - nationalise it. It can be bought. FB grew in importance and owners' bank accounts grew in zeros. This success comes with a price: higher standards of transparency and accountability. Again, why? Bigger companies have higher standards of transparency and accountability? Not really. A billion dollar company is subject to the same laws of transparency and accountability and disclosure as a million dollar company. At least in my country. There's laws for public companies, no matter the size. As was said on the other thread, the more the platform becomes widely used for worldwide communication, the narrower should be the freedom of FB board to do whatever they like without democratic ways of discussion. But again, why? It's a platform owned by a publicly traded company. Unless they break laws, under what authority can anyone tell the Board - "you cannot run your own company as you see fit"? What would the investors do, if the Board says - well, this step is in the shareholders' best interest, but these people say we cannot do that, so we won't act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. As far as I know that's reason for shareholders to remove the Board! Facebook has its own "democratic ways of discussion" - there's "consultation" going on now on Facebook about the new terms of service and privacy policy. When it comes to unilateral contracts, free will to negotiate is hampered. And when it comes to platforms of strong monopolistic tendency, such as FB, accepting these unilateral contracts (terms of use) can be far from being an option, but a pre-rquisite to fully engage on communication in the public sphere. Yep, it's a take it or leave it proposition. Just like Windows, or Office or pretty much any software, service, association, club, etc. Either you agree to their terms, or you don't join/use/participate. And I don't have a problem with that. I know many friends and family who have left Facebook, or never joined, and engage in communication quite happily on many of the other social networks, as well as via other tools. One does not HAVE to be on Facebook. Billions of people aren't. A good 70% of my students each semester aren't, I make them join as it's part of the class, but many delete the account after the class. They just don't want to be on. And that's fine. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5046 - Release Date: 06/05/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 20:29:44 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:29:44 +0800 Subject: [governance] Cyber Intrigue: The Flame Malware International Politics In-Reply-To: <4FCE1F58.3050708@cafonso.ca> References: <1362801390-1338905552-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-383179551-@b3.c5.bise6.blackberry> <4FCE1F58.3050708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On 05/06/2012, at 11:01 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Sometimes I cannot read Malcom's msgs in Thunderbird either. But if I > open the "View msg source" option, I do read everything, including the > long certificate key attachment at the end. The problem is that the mailing list software munges the message (adding a footer, I think) so that the digital signature no longer matches. The solution is either to do the munging differently, or remove the signature. I'll work on one of these as time permits, but in the meantime, people should avoid sending S/MIME-signed email to the list. -- 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 pouzin at well.com Tue Jun 5 22:19:10 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:19:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message *gmail.com>, > at 08:03:23 on Tue, 5 Jun 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > writes > > ITU: More Transparency On World Conference On Telecommunications (WCIT)? >> > > Why is this a risk? Other than the hundreds of hours required to read all > the documents and comment on them? > Ask the person who set this thread subject. > > Or were you hoping that a secret agreement could later be repudiated > because of that secrecy (I don't think that's likely to happen). > As this thread is loaded with complaints about ITU and WCIT I just hoped to bring attention on an ITU initiative for more transparency. Louis Pouzin > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 5 22:37:13 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:37:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <054AADA7-46D5-43D2-BBB9-6911C7E15B61@acm.org> On 5 Jun 2012, at 22:19, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > As this thread is loaded with complaints about ITU and WCIT > I just hoped to bring attention on an ITU initiative for more transparency. I sometimes wonder how much further the ITU would have gotten with its various quests for relevance if it had transformed itself in the image of WSIS and the Tunis Agenda and made genuine strides toward multistakeholder participation during the last 7 years. A missed opportunity I think. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jun 5 22:53:40 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: <054AADA7-46D5-43D2-BBB9-6911C7E15B61@acm.org> References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> <054AADA7-46D5-43D2-BBB9-6911C7E15B61@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 On 2012-06-05, at 10:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2012, at 22:19, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> >> As this thread is loaded with complaints about ITU and WCIT >> I just hoped to bring attention on an ITU initiative for more transparency. > > I sometimes wonder how much further the ITU would have gotten with its various quests for relevance if it had transformed itself in the image of WSIS and the Tunis Agenda and made genuine strides toward multistakeholder participation during the last 7 years. > > A missed opportunity I think. > > 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 acm.org Wed Jun 6 00:23:29 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 00:23:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook profiles blocked and content removed in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <21B81E06-CC98-493D-A594-4E64F4F4F46C@privaterra.org> <4FC65B85.7040307@cafonso.ca> <105F1EC9-631C-49BC-9D01-4E1BAE0B26F4@acm.org> Message-ID: On 5 Jun 2012, at 04:18, Rui Correia wrote: > Does a sign saying "No fishing" and "No dogs allowed" mean that these > two are in the same category? this isn't quite equivalent to the point I was trying to make so long ago. but in any case, yes, to some extent they are indeed being put into several common categories by your question and its structure. more importantly: an interesting blog on Facebook http://radiofreeandrew.tumblr.com/post/24519271186/a-thought-on-facebook-schadenfreude 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 6 01:46:14 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:46:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date Message-ID: Hugs to Milton Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" Messages seem to take a while to be delivered to the list, I'm sure mine won't be the first on this subject. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jun 6 02:27:07 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:27:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 04:19:10 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" writes >Why is this a risk? Other than the hundreds of hours required to read >all the documents and comment on them? > >Ask the person who set this thread subject. Apologies. The absence of a "re:" in your title confused me into thinking you had started a new thread. -- 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 Wed Jun 6 02:31:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:01:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch> References: <3B6BC0FD-FBC2-462D-A411-9C811E02B38C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FCEF93D.1040504@itforchange.net> On Monday 04 June 2012 09:56 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder Snip > > So to summarize: > > 1. We are in agreement that oversight should refer to just the > USG/NTIA functions. Yes. > 2. We are in agreement that, as per your recent statement, it is > preferable that oversight and broader GPP be addressed in different > institutional contexts rather than folded into one body, right? Yes. That is the main proposition we have been trying to advance. It is there in the joint CS statement and it was very clearly articulated in my presentation at CSTD (which the US's chief delegate was good enough to partly paraphrase to the assembly). > > A couple questions follow. Let me try on my Parminder interrogator > hat :-) Very happy to respond. BTW, I really do think that as CS actors in a political space, claiming some kind of representativity of broader social groups, we need to be able boldly ask such clear questions (which you call as interrogation), and be always obligated to respond to them (something I often dont see happen here). We are not at an evening cocktail party; a political space like this one is more akin to say, town halls or parliaments, where such cross-questioning and seeking clear responses is the normal order. Yes, it may lead occasionally to some commotion, but we can live with it. But we can shed our political responsibility. > > 3. Do you therefore agree that the G77 & China proposals of new UN > bodies that would do both together are ill-considered? Yes or no? Are you speaking of the corresponding WGIG models? Then, yes. I dont think a body that is supposed to, for instance, facilitate treaties, conventions etc, or discuss Internet intermediary principles, is best suited to undertake the direct oversight function. The nature of actors, interplay between different kinds of actors, the basic natures of functions involved, all are very different, and thus we should have different institutional approaches to the CIR oversight and broader GPP issues. At the same time, the kind of bodies that are proposed, with some improvements in their participation models, are very much required for the broader GPP functions, minus oversight function (aka OECD's CCICP functions). I asked whether it is WGIG models you refer to because since WGIG I havent heard of any 'new body' proposals from China et al. They seem to be focussing on ITU, and a core group, which can be said to have more authoritarian aspirations, has developed some degree of aversion to 'new body' proposals. This I think is because of three reasons. One legitimate and two not so. The legitimate reason is of pragmatism - new bodies are difficult to form and a dialogue focussed on them may merely serve to take away from the more plausible possibility - which is going down the ITU route. The illegitimate reason is that for some of them, there is that 'problematic' distinct possibility that any new body created in the current context will certainly be much more MS than they may be comfortable with, and secondly, is liable to also raise Internet related human rights issues that they may be desirous of suppressing even more than they seek democratic global governance of the Internet. It may be important, in this context, to note that one of the seven functions envisaged for CIRP proposed by India is promotion and protection of human rights. > > 4. Do you therefore agree that the IBSA and Indian proposals of a > body to "integrate and *oversee* the bodies responsible for technical > and operational functioning of the Internet, including global > standards setting" along with performing a wide array of GPP functions > are similarly ill-considered, and that these may contribute to the > lexical confusion? Yes or no? Yes, to that they are inadequately considered vis a vis the oversight role. No, to being ill-considered, if the prefix ill- begins to suggest bad intentionality, which I dont think there was in this case. Rio proposal was put together in a very short inter-gov meeting following the Rio seminar on global Internet governance. The main focus was on the 'new body' part which most people fail to notice was a very significant going-forward from earlier IBSA statements which says, new or existing body (read, ITU). (The absence of good reception of Rio proposal in some, powerful, quarters, has simply led some of the involved actors to go back to 'existing body or ITU' position.). India's CIRP proposal was also similarly developed in a very short time. It seems to have pulled together some language from the WGIG model and took an improved version of OECD's CCICP stakeholder participation model to put forward a proposal which was always meant to be a dialogue starter. The oversight part is there as a CIRP function because internationalising CIR oversight is an important demand of all developing (in fact all non US) countries. Accordingly, a CIRP proposal could not be made without that part. There perhaps wasnt time enough to configure the oversight role in its performative details, whereby some of the issues we are now discussing may have come up. From what I have seen from their attitude, I am sure India would be open to suggestions that the oversight functions could be taken out of CIRP to a more appropriate international structure. Also agree that such in-adequately considered proposals can cause lexical confusions. Civil society should especially be ready for and active in such conceptual clarifications, esp when they have important bearing on practical issues. However, lexical confusions are so common in IG space - like using new, confusing, terms like AoC for what is basically a bipartite agreement (more of it in another email), trying to claim that 'enhanced cooperation' which has a clear global public policy related institutional definition in TA, pertains to more people meeting more cordially in more conferences, remaining unclear whether MSism relates similarly to all levels of policy process, and similarly to all kinds of policy processes (for instance separately for CIR oversight and broader GPP issues), or it relates differently, and if so how, which clarifications alone can contribute to real MS models that are needed.... I agree, we should actively contribute to lexical and conceptual clarities before we can seek substantive convergences. I am delighted that we are making some progress here. parminder > > If we agree on 1 & 2, I don't see how we could disagree on 3 & 4, but > maybe I'm missing something. > > Either way, let's build on the areas of agreement. > > Cheers, > > 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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 03:40:55 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:40:55 +0400 Subject: [governance] Statements of Azerbaijani Presidential administration Message-ID: Dear all, Тhe head of the Azerbaijan’s presidential administration ideological department Ali Hasanov has made a number of political statements on the role of international organizations, foreign governments, European Parliament, etc in Azerbaijan. His speech is on youtube, different web-sites. His speech is not shocking at all, but rather demonstrating to what extent the Azeri oligarchi authorities have lost touch with reality. Indeed, oil has intoxicating effect. Poor Europe…what would you do without Azeri oil? Why you have not agreed to the fact that “Azerbaijan is a cradle of civilization” and “citadel of democracy”? Henceforth you have to rely on merely alternative energy or recall nuclear programs… I quote CONTACT.az, which is a web project of TURAN, one of the influential Azeri new agencies: http://www.contact.az/docs/2012/Politics/05316192en.htm 2012 May 31 ( Thursday ) 16:36:33 Today the Head of the ideological department of the presidential administration made a number of serious statements and acted as an expert on international relations and geopolitical issues. He made his speech at a conference on the issue: “The role of NGOs in civil society development.” Hasanov began to argue with all international organizations and foreign governments and media, who sharply criticized official Baku recently. Hasanov started his speech by accusing foreign donors who fund projects that "do not meet the national interests of Azerbaijan." He unleashed all his anger on "Amnesty International", "Freedom House", "Human Rights Watch", etc. "These organizations believe that as soon as they appear in Azerbaijan, we must all stand at attention, and consider us an African country," said Hasanov angrily. Going into the role of either the prosecutor or Nostradamus, Hasanov said Europe must remain silent, because when Azerbaijan was a cultural country, there was no culture at all in Europe. Referring to criticism that the international media rained down on Hasanov’s head and the head of his patrons, the presidential representative said that for over 20 years the media and transnational channels have said nothing about the Karabakh conflict. Hasanov showed special hatred against British newspaper "The Independent", which writes not about Karabakh, but about beaten journalists, and harassment of opposition. Further, this apologist for authorities struck conference participants with the following: "Nowhere in the world the opposition is not as free, as in Azerbaijan!" Then he attacked the European Parliament: "When it suits them we are their partners, and when not they call us enemies." "Let them look at themselves, let them look at the crisis in the Eastern Europe," said the presidential "oracle". Accusing multinational TV channels of organizing the Arab spring, this grief-expert accused the West of betraying their partners. "How is it possible, for 50 years Hosni Mubarak suited you, and now has become bad; what have you done with the statehood of Egypt?" said Hasanov in offended tone. Returning finally to the situation in Azerbaijan, Hasanov accused the radical opposition of anti-Azerbaijanism, hostile and anti-state activities. An example of such activities, he cited the fact that foreign journalists have been shown not only the central parts of the capital, but its dirty suburbs. "What kind of festivity is it when the opposition groups go out to the streets and make statements to foreign journalists? This opposition will not receive support from the people, and will not come to power," concluded Hasanov. The representative of the president did not hesitate to insult women participating in the action before the Public Television. "They specially rushed to the ground so that police touched their intimate places, and that TV channels made videos," said the doctor of sciences, a graduate of Moscow State University. "All this was done to form a negative image of Azerbaijan. While we are fighting against religious fundamentalism, they betray the national interest”, said Ali Hasanov. Finally, having lost all sense of proportion and orientation, Hasanov, attacked Iran. "You have all the fake, your religion and your religious leaders," he said, referring to Tehran. During the debate, pro-government advocates, armed with Hasanov’s theses, supported him. A resolution condemning the decisions of European parliament on Azerbaijan was adopted. -- Narine Khachatryan Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia www.mediaeducation.am www.safe.am www.immasin.am -- Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia www.mediaeducation.am www.safe.am www.immasin.am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 6 05:00:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:30:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> Hi David, On Monday 04 June 2012 09:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > Apologies for the deep dive in the minutiae of root zone management, > but I think clarity here is important. Not at all. I must thank you for the clarity you have provided me. More below. > > On Jun 4, 2012, at 3:05 AM, parminder wrote: >> For those who have been arguing that ICANN cannot remove individual >> websites, that might be true, but they can remove complete domain >> names, like cctlds, isnt it. > > No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. > > ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US > Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the > top-level domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level > domain removed. That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent > to the US Dept. of Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that existing > policies and processes were followed, and when approved that request > is forwarded to Verisign as the Root Zone Manager for that TLD's entry > in the root zone to be deleted. At that point, the modified zone file > is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone Manager with a key that is held by > (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) and pushed to the 13 root > servers that will make the modified root zone available to the Internet. All actors you mention are subject to US jurisdiction (I will come to the 3 non US root servers later) and therefore if US government wants and orders something it applies to all of them. So the point is, US gov can do it. Doesnt matter if ICANN alone can do it or not. The issue under discussion is US government's unilateral power and control for CIRs, and its global unacceptability. > >> On the other hand, I am not completely sure what is the impact of the >> recent securitisation of the DNS/root zone with regard to possible >> domain seizures and other interferences, but I suspect that there are >> indeed some important implications of it. > > There is no impact of DNSSEC-signing the root to domain name seizures. Reading the following part of your email, I am not clear on what basis you make the above assertion. But you can help me with more clarification. > > The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an > attempt by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to > modify a response from a root server can be detected. This seems to suggest that modifications to query responses made by someone who *does* hold the root zone's private key (ie root zone manager, which is under contract of US gov, and therefore means the US gov) will not be detected. That is the problem. And what I read from your email is that due to DNSSEC operation, now US gov can not only remove an entire cctld or gtld, but can modify root zone responses to specific websites level queries, which is more or less removing them (as we will discuss later) . Is it not so? I was afraid, but unsure, that something like this may now have been made possible. Now, from your email, I am clear about it. Thanks for it. (No irony intended.) > Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to > top-level domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked > 'what's the address for "foo.example.com "' > respond with "don't know, but ask the name servers for .COM and here > is a list of those name servers"). You say 'almost always' which leaves the possibility - with an actor with the relevant intention, and the power of the US gov - that such a referral - 'what's the address for "foo.example.com "' - may not be directed to the concerned tld name server. It may simply be terminated in say, a notice by US custom's authority or US State Dept. Am I right. > DNSSEC allows validating resolvers (typically operated by ISPs) to > verify that no one has tried to insert bogus data in that referral. > > An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow > subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able > to insert something inappropriate into the root zone, yes, that possible eventuality is 'the' problem with unilateral oversight, it is not a mere side issue..... > the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US > and with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do > anything) would be forced to make a decision: publish the "secure" > root zone with the inappropriate data or refuse to publish the entire > zone. If such a subversion were to take place, I suspect a majority > of root server operators (yes, even many of those in the US) would > choose the latter with consequences so unappealing as to be comparable > with Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. It is here we differ, because in saying 'I suspect' you are expressing an opinion, which I am not at all able to agree with. I am quite sure that the three outside root server operators will go along, however unhappy they may be in doing so, because as you yourself put it, not going along with have catastrophic consequneces for the Internet. The website or websites that US may choose to hit will be of relatively much much less 'global' economic and political consequence - though they may be of life and death importance to some people, groups, or country(s). Rather than interfering so drastically with whole of the Internet, all concerned actors will simply comply. I simply see no possibility of non US root server operators not accepting the upstream changes, whatever noises they may make while doing so. (And your claim that 'even many of those in the US' will refuse to comply in completely invalid because they will be subject to any US gov order with the necessary legal force). > > The point here is that no single party involved in root management, > the TLD administrators, ICANN, NTIA, Verisign, or the root server > operators, is able to unilaterally "remove complete domain names" and > any attempt to do so would be "bad". After reading your email I am even more convinced that US can hit not only complete cctlds ot tlds, but also individual websites, because of the DNSSEC structure, which I understand US government insisted should be as it is rather than anyway else. Gives no comfort to us outside US. The case for internationalising CIR oversight is even stronger with the securitisation of the root. I am rather more convinced now that US government by its own power can effectively cut off any part of the Internet (unless the concerned traffic is as insular as perhaps is only possible in China). Even if it does need help of certain outside actors, almost all in the North, you must not underestimate US's demonstrated persuasive and/or arm twisting skills to enforce its will internationally, whether it is the case of Julian Assange or Iran. (I am not even going into the unmentionably sordid history of US's 'global interferences' - to put it lightly - of the last century). I dont know on what basis people in the North, or specifically in the US, can be sermonising to the world that we simply should trust the US gov. I feel even worse when some aspiring global citizens from the South so gullibly swallow the bait. Parminder > > Regards, > -drc > > P.S. I have argued that the current root zone management process has a > flaw in that the publication of the root zone should not be done by > the Root Zone Manager, rather it should be done by (or at least vetted > by) the IANA Functions Manager to ensure the requested change was done > correctly before it hits the root servers. Haven't gotten much > traction as some folks feel it would add yet another step in an > already too Byzantine a process for something as simple as modifying a > zone file. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Jun 6 05:14:03 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:44:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Techcrunch | Is The U.N. Really Trying To Take Over The Internet? Nope. Message-ID: <4FCF1F5B.9000809@cis-india.org> Is The U.N. Really Trying To Take Over The Internet? Nope. ========================================================== By Frederic Lardinois At a U.S. House of Representatives hearing earlier this week, a number of government officials from both sides of the aisle, as well as Google’s chief Internet evangelist and inventor of the TCP/IP protocol Vint Cerf, warned that the U.N.’s [International Telecommunication Union][] (ITU) could try to wrestle control away from the U.S.-centric [ICANN][] and “take control of the Internet.” For the most part, all of these fears are completely speculative at this point and as the ITU’s secretary-general [Hamadoun I. Touré][] himself clearly [pointed out][] earlier this year, “this is simply ridiculous.” Here is some background on why these fears keep popping up: this December, the ITU is scheduled to convene at a [major summit][] in Dubai, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). During this summit, the ITU’s International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) treaty, which was adopted all the way back in 1988 is up for revision. These regulations have guided how the organization’s members organize international telecom services ever since. While this treaty has been widely heralded for jump starting the widespread telecom deregulation in the 1990s, it obviously predated widespread usage of the Internet and is overdue for revision. The ITU has a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector entities and academic institutions (including, for example, Apple and Cisco, but not Google). Its mission is to coordinate the [international radio-frequency spectrum][] and satellite orbits, as well as the development of standards for Internet access, voice and video compression and related issues. In total, the ITU produces or revises more than 200 standards per year. Last but not least, the ITU’s development sector is chartered with assisting developing countries in gaining access to information and telecommunications technologies and help narrowing the digital divide. Given the commotion around last week’s hearings in the U.S., I talked to ITU senior communications officer Toby Johnson late last week to get the ITU’s perspective on this controversy. As he noted in our conversation, part of the reason why there is a lot of confusion about the ITU potentially trying to wrestle control away from ICANN (and, by extension, the U.S.), is that there tends to be a lot of confusion around how the ITU actually works. The ITRs are, he stressed, not binding regulations but a treaty between the ITU’s member states. The member states then have to implement them through national legislation. They don’t surrender their national rights to the ITU or U.N. by being part of the ITU. Another reason why this controversy keeps coming up – and will likely continue to do so until at least the Dubai summit – is that the proposals the member states are currently submitting for the revision are not public. So far, Johnson tells me, the states have submitted about 180 pages worth of proposals. While we can’t know what’s in those proposals, the ITU is willing to say that there is nothing in them so far that even comes close to threatening ICANN’s position. The U.S., by virtue of being a member state of ITU, has access to these documents and in a [widely circulated memo][] (PDF) from earlier this year, the U.S. government itself admitted that it’s quite happy with how the preliminary preparations for the summit have proceeded and that “there are no pending proposals to invest the ITU with ICANN-like Internet governance authority.” A proposal that would try to take some control away from ICANN could, of course, be submitted before the summit, but even if that happened, it’s unlikely that it would ever get past the proposal stage given that ITU decisions are made by consensus (though they don’t have to be unanimous). It’s worth noting, too, that there are far more important issues at stake at the Dubai meeting anyway. Instead of attacking ICANN’s position, the meeting will likely focus on questions about taxation, roaming, interoperability, network neutrality, how to get more broadband access to developing countries and other more pressing issues. If U.S. government officials and folks like Vint Cerf then keep saying no to U.N. government control of the Internet, they do so knowing that they are playing a pretty safe game given how unlikely this scenario really is. Given that people from across the political spectrum in the U.S. feel a certain unease about all things related to the U.N., it’s hard not to look at this as political gamesmanship that values this kind of rhetoric more than a rational debate over how the Internet should be governed. Links ----- [International Telecommunication Union]: [ICANN]: [Hamadoun I. Touré]: [pointed out]: [major summit]: [international radio-frequency spectrum]: [widely circulated memo]: -- Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society @pranesh_prakash · PGP ID 0x1D5C5F07 · http://cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 6 05:56:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:26:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:17 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Ignoring that, there are technical issues relating to the size of signatures that make supporting multiple keys as you suggest quite challenging. Revising DNSSEC to add this capability would likely be quite expensive and I suspect the cost/benefit analysis would imply it would be difficult to get the technical community to revise the specifications, update implementations, and deploy the new code, particularly as all that effort would need to be done to address a non-technical consideration that most in the technical community would view (rightly or wrongly) as political window dressing. > > That exactly is why technical standards development and CIR requires political oversight. How can, what you call as, the 'technical community' decide that such a matter of utmost importance to people and countries outside the US is simply 'political window dressing'. It is ridiculous. And whose cost/benefit analysis is it? Who decides the social and political costs and benefits? Whose political and social interests does this 'technical community', which thinks as you say it thinks, represent. If they think they are experts in technical matters, can they, by a similar logic, allow the possibilities that others may know more than them about social, economic, cultural and political matters, and the corresponding costs and benefits. This is a misuse of 'technical power' which really is no technical power, it is real economic, social and political power masquerading as technical power, hiding behind technical people and the so called 'technical community' in order to gain some legitimacy, or rather to avoid the blame of illegitimacy. And if it is just 'political window dressing' why was the US gov so interested in asserting that the current DNSSEC model is what it wants, and none of the possible alternatives. And why does US gov want the IANA manager to contractually agree that US gov will decide on the chief security officer for this function... Does this look like matters that can be called 'political window dressing'. > However, I might suggest the focus on DNSSEC in this regard is misplaced. As mentioned in a previous note, DNSSEC merely provides the capability to verify that a DNS response hasn't been modified from the point at which the data was signed by the private key holder to the point where it was validated (typically by ISPs). The data first must be created before it can be signed. Once signed it still must be published. Even if the US were to go "rogue", root servers and caches outside the US would hold the pre-rogue root zone and it would be straightforward (technically at least) for a new signing facility to be established in Geneva, Beijing, or wherever else is felt to be more trustworthy. This suggestion is like beginning to set up a fire department when the house is on fire. Actors dont go wholesale rogue in the manner you picture it, neither is such a radical from-the-scratch response possible in the real world. This is a bit of a technical construction of the problem and its solution. Actors go rogue in stages, carefully, for their rogue-ness to be sustainable. As US has been going rogue on IP related international domain seizures, (and attempting to formalise it through SOPA), as in the attempt at 'Internet Kill Switch' legislation, as evident with ACTA, with use of Stuxnet and flame, formalising un-disclosed security relationships with google, facebook, twitter etc, with software companies...... What is your criterion for declaring US gone rogue? And the drastic one time solution you suggest - when the going-rogue event has taken place - accordingly doesnt happen. The powerful actor going rogue is too smart for that. (This is also the simple reason why UG gov's NTIA acts as it does, often looking so much better to the global audience than many other US gov arms.) At no point it does anything that makes the cost/ benefit equation for other powerful players such as to go for really drastic steps, and thus dominant power gets accepted and established.... Simple socio-political insights. No rocket science really. parminder > The real problems are in how the data to be signed are created, edited, distributed, and published. > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 6 06:15:02 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:15:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:46, Adam Peake wrote: > Hugs to Milton > > > Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" While this document is a start and I am glad someone dropped it in Milton's lap for sharing, on the cover page it says: > Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not yet 'incorporated into this version' I am hoping that Milton's source continue to drop revised versions of this document on him. 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 hakik at hakik.org Wed Jun 6 06:29:55 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:29:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Off topics" In-Reply-To: <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: >> >> The real problems are in how the data to be signed are created, >> edited, distributed, and published. >> >>Regards, >>-drc >> These are really challenging aspects surrounding the global expansion of the Internet content, especially for huge data. I am editing a book on "Ethical Data Mining Applications for Socio-Economic Development". Not to bother the community with details, but encouraging to submit any proposal on this issue, if you are working. They will be very much appreciated. You may please find the details at http://www.hakik.org/current_call1.htm Best regards, Hakikur -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 6 07:25:47 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:25:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9G2Wjsz74zzPFAYD@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 06:15:02 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. > >So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not >yet 'incorporated into this version' It's worse than that, because even the initial version presented to WCIT can be modified by the Congress (why else hold it, if all it does is rubber stamp a Council document). From my experience at previous ITU 'summits', like WTDC, most of the serious meaning-changing will happen in late night breakout groups, and each subsection will go through possibly dozens of official revisions, with everything (from an IG perspective) depending, in the end, on half a dozen words in the whole thing. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 6 08:32:55 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:32:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Techcrunch | Is The U.N. Really Trying To Take Over The Internet? Nope. In-Reply-To: <4FCF1F5B.9000809@cis-india.org> References: <4FCF1F5B.9000809@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <56CFD27B-CC26-47C1-BD19-F49C7F5B9125@uzh.ch> Wow, talk about missing the point…who has said it's about ICANN? On Jun 6, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > > Is The U.N. Really Trying To Take Over The Internet? Nope. > ========================================================== > > By Frederic Lardinois > > > At a U.S. House of Representatives hearing earlier this week, a number of > government officials from both sides of the aisle, as well as Google’s > chief Internet evangelist and inventor of the TCP/IP protocol Vint Cerf, > warned that the U.N.’s [International Telecommunication Union][] (ITU) > could try to wrestle control away from the U.S.-centric [ICANN][] and “take > control of the Internet.” For the most part, all of these fears are > completely speculative at this point and as the ITU’s secretary-general > [Hamadoun I. Touré][] himself clearly [pointed out][] earlier this year, > “this is simply ridiculous.” > > Here is some background on why these fears keep popping up: this December, > the ITU is scheduled to convene at a [major summit][] in Dubai, the World > Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). During this summit, > the ITU’s International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) treaty, which > was adopted all the way back in 1988 is up for revision. These regulations > have guided how the organization’s members organize international telecom > services ever since. While this treaty has been widely heralded for jump > starting the widespread telecom deregulation in the 1990s, it obviously > predated widespread usage of the Internet and is overdue for revision. > > The ITU has a membership of 193 countries and over 700 private-sector > entities and academic institutions (including, for example, Apple and > Cisco, but not Google). Its mission is to coordinate the [international > radio-frequency spectrum][] and satellite orbits, as well as the > development of standards for Internet access, voice and video compression > and related issues. In total, the ITU produces or revises more than 200 > standards per year. Last but not least, the ITU’s development sector is > chartered with assisting developing countries in gaining access to > information and telecommunications technologies and help narrowing the > digital divide. > > Given the commotion around last week’s hearings in the U.S., I talked to > ITU senior communications officer Toby Johnson late last week to get the > ITU’s perspective on this controversy. As he noted in our conversation, > part of the reason why there is a lot of confusion about the ITU > potentially trying to wrestle control away from ICANN (and, by extension, > the U.S.), is that there tends to be a lot of confusion around how the ITU > actually works. The ITRs are, he stressed, not binding regulations but a > treaty between the ITU’s member states. The member states then have to > implement them through national legislation. They don’t surrender their > national rights to the ITU or U.N. by being part of the ITU. > > Another reason why this controversy keeps coming up – and will likely > continue to do so until at least the Dubai summit – is that the proposals > the member states are currently submitting for the revision are not public. > So far, Johnson tells me, the states have submitted about 180 pages worth > of proposals. While we can’t know what’s in those proposals, the ITU is > willing to say that there is nothing in them so far that even comes close > to threatening ICANN’s position. > > The U.S., by virtue of being a member state of ITU, has access to these > documents and in a [widely circulated memo][] (PDF) from earlier this year, > the U.S. government itself admitted that it’s quite happy with how the > preliminary preparations for the summit have proceeded and that “there are > no pending proposals to invest the ITU with ICANN-like Internet governance > authority.” > > A proposal that would try to take some control away from ICANN could, of > course, be submitted before the summit, but even if that happened, it’s > unlikely that it would ever get past the proposal stage given that ITU > decisions are made by consensus (though they don’t have to be unanimous). > > It’s worth noting, too, that there are far more important issues at stake > at the Dubai meeting anyway. Instead of attacking ICANN’s position, the > meeting will likely focus on questions about taxation, roaming, > interoperability, network neutrality, how to get more broadband access to > developing countries and other more pressing issues. > > If U.S. government officials and folks like Vint Cerf then keep saying no > to U.N. government control of the Internet, they do so knowing that they > are playing a pretty safe game given how unlikely this scenario really is. > Given that people from across the political spectrum in the U.S. feel a > certain unease about all things related to the U.N., it’s hard not to look > at this as political gamesmanship that values this kind of rhetoric more > than a rational debate over how the Internet should be governed. > > > Links > ----- > [International Telecommunication Union]: > > [ICANN]: > [Hamadoun I. Touré]: > [pointed out]: > [major summit]: > > [international radio-frequency spectrum]: > [widely circulated memo]: > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society > @pranesh_prakash · PGP ID 0x1D5C5F07 · http://cis-india.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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 6 09:15:27 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:15:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So this means that even though there are no proposals dealing explicitly with taking critical Internet resources we still have to believe that the ITU is out to take over ICANN et al, because such proposal “could” exist but is cleverly being hidden by the evil conspirators…? No offense, but this is beginning to sound like people who predict the end of the world, then when the world doesn’t end, they shift the date back. Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly things that (could) affect the Internet in there. But they have to do with negotiating (or blurring) the boundary between layer 1 and 2 telecoms and layer 3 and up. E.g., p. 16 the definition of a global telecom service; e.g., p 21, MOD 30 “Member states/operating agencies shall have the right to know which international routes are used for carrying traffic.” (Almost certainly written by someone who hasn’t a clue how BGP works.) From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:15 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:46, Adam Peake wrote: > Hugs to Milton > > > Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" While this document is a start and I am glad someone dropped it in Milton's lap for sharing, on the cover page it says: > Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not yet 'incorporated into this version' I am hoping that Milton's source continue to drop revised versions of this document on him. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jun 6 10:10:04 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:10:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista> <"ff.o rg"@mac.com> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.ne t> Message-ID: <3290AB54-15BF-46A9-981E-00818B2FD7E7@istaff.org> On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:56 AM, parminder wrote: > That exactly is why technical standards development and CIR requires political oversight. How can, what you call as, the 'technical community' decide that such a matter of utmost importance to people and countries outside the US is simply 'political window dressing'. It is ridiculous. And whose cost/benefit analysis is it? Who decides the social and political costs and benefits? Whose political and social interests does this 'technical community', which thinks as you say it thinks, represent. If they think they are experts in technical matters, can they, by a similar logic, allow the possibilities that others may know more than them about social, economic, cultural and political matters, and the corresponding costs and benefits. > > This is a misuse of 'technical power' which really is no technical power, it is real economic, social and political power masquerading as technical power, hiding behind technical people and the so called 'technical community' in order to gain some legitimacy, or rather to avoid the blame of illegitimacy. Parminder - If a clear consensus statement of political or social goals in this area had existed at the time, I am very confident that the Internet technical community would have taken it fully into consideration at the time of development. Please do not claim that "oversight" is needed when there is a lack of agreement on requirements at the governmental level; instead, work on getting that level of agreement regarding the social or political norms so that those working on technology can aim for something which isn't a moving target. >> However, I might suggest the focus on DNSSEC in this regard is misplaced. As mentioned in a previous note, DNSSEC merely provides the capability to verify that a DNS response hasn't been modified from the point at which the data was signed by the private key holder to the point where it was validated (typically by ISPs). The data first must be created before it can be signed. Once signed it still must be published. Even if the US were to go "rogue", root servers and caches outside the US would hold the pre-rogue root zone and it would be straightforward (technically at least) for a new signing facility to be established in Geneva, Beijing, or wherever else is felt to be more trustworthy. > This suggestion is like beginning to set up a fire department when the house is on fire. Actors dont go wholesale rogue in the manner you picture it, neither is such a radical from-the-scratch response possible in the real world. This is a bit of a technical construction of the problem and its solution. Actors go rogue in stages, carefully, for their rogue-ness to be sustainable. As US has been going rogue on IP related international domain seizures, (and attempting to formalise it through SOPA), as in the attempt at 'Internet Kill Switch' legislation, as evident with ACTA, with use of Stuxnet and flame, formalising un-disclosed security relationships with google, facebook, twitter etc, with software companies...... What is your criterion for declaring US gone rogue? And the drastic one time solution you suggest - when the going-rogue event has taken place - accordingly doesnt happen. The powerful actor going rogue is too smart for that. (This is also the simple reason why UG gov's NTIA acts as it does, often looking so much better to the global audience than many other US gov arms.) At no point it does anything that makes the cost/ benefit equation for other powerful players such as to go for really drastic steps, and thus dominant power gets accepted and established.... Simple socio-political insights. No rocket science really. Again, you assert that the USG has effectively violated widely accepted norms as further evidence that it should not hold a unique position in oversight of the Internet critical resources. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion (that any single government should not hold a unique role in oversight) but only because I believe it is clearly evident if indeed a stable effective multilateral oversight can be achieved. However, the fact that I'd support your conclusion over the long-term does not mean any agreement that the the premise that USG has violated accepted norms in this area. If there really are well-understood and universally accepted norms among the governments of the world, then there should be clear agreements on these principles regarding Internet Governance. For example, one can argue that it is not appropriate for a country to take action against Internet infrastructure in its territory solely to enforce its laws against parties in other countries jurisdiction. Want to solve the Internet governance logjam? Find a way for governments to have a conversion about that principle (i.e. not using unilateral actions against Internet infrastructure as a means of extraterritorial law enforcement) with real multi-stakeholder participation (incl. civil society, businesses, etc) such that it results in some form of binding agreement among governments on that principle. Once we have such agreements, ensuring that the Internet actually functions in a conforming manner (from both protocols and technical coordination) is easy. In the absence of such agreements, it appears that everyone complains that the Internet technical community is "getting it wrong" when the real problem is the much more common situation of lack of any actual agreement among governments. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These thoughts are provided AS-IS, and while they appear to be within normal conventions, no warranty is expressed or implied. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 6 10:11:22 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:22 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> (message from Milton L Mueller on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:15:27 +0000) References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120606141122.275D6819F@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly things that (could) affect the > Internet in there I read one of the proposed amendments as trying to give ITU the power to define what is "spam, malware, etc." in a way that automatically gets incorporated by reference into international law: :: harm to technical facilities and personnel shall be construed to :: include spam, malware, etc. as defined in relevant ITU-T :: Recommendations (as the case may be), as well as malicious code :: transmitted by any telecommunication facility or technology, :: including Internet and Internet Protocol. (CWG/54/4.13) I may have missed something, but the rest of the texts seems to me to consist mostly of paper tigers. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 6 10:21:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:21:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, My recommendation is continued caution, continuing to pay attention and continuing to try for proper levels of transparency. We know more is coming, and we know from talking to peopel in various countries that they want more. So all I was saying was absence at this point signifies nothing. Beleive I will not posit a threat from WCIT after the WCIT has ended. Also as I read through the language quickly i see a fair number of things that are ambiguous enough that they could end up concerning me once I had done some more work to understand what they are actually saying and what the techno-policy implications are. I have not finished my analysis, but I look forward to seeing yours. BTW, my concerns have always had more to do with the way the Internet actually works than the fluff around the edges about how entries are approved into or out of the database managed by DNS. avri On 6 Jun 2012, at 09:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > So this means that even though there are no proposals dealing explicitly with taking critical Internet resources we still have to believe that the ITU is out to take over ICANN et al, because such proposal “could” exist but is cleverly being hidden by the evil conspirators…? > > No offense, but this is beginning to sound like people who predict the end of the world, then when the world doesn’t end, they shift the date back. > > Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly things that (could) affect the Internet in there. But they have to do with negotiating (or blurring) the boundary between layer 1 and 2 telecoms and layer 3 and up. E.g., p. 16 the definition of a global telecom service; e.g., p 21, MOD 30 “Member states/operating agencies shall have the right to know which international routes are used for carrying traffic.” (Almost certainly written by someone who hasn’t a clue how BGP works.) > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:15 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date > > > On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:46, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hugs to Milton > > > > > > Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" > > While this document is a start and I am glad someone dropped it in Milton's lap for sharing, on the cover page it says: > > > Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. > > So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not yet 'incorporated into this version' > > > I am hoping that Milton's source continue to drop revised versions of this document on him. > > avri > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 10:30:27 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:30:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:56 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Tuesday 05 June 2012 09:17 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Ignoring that, there are technical issues relating to the size of signatures > that make supporting multiple keys as you suggest quite challenging. > Revising DNSSEC to add this capability would likely be quite expensive and I > suspect the cost/benefit analysis would imply it would be difficult to get > the technical community to revise the specifications, update > implementations, and deploy the new code, particularly as all that effort > would need to be done to address a non-technical consideration that most in > the technical community would view (rightly or wrongly) as political window > dressing. > > > > > That exactly is why technical standards development and CIR requires > political oversight. But in your agreements with Bill above I had thought you excluded standards development from the definiton of "oversight"? How can, what you call as, the 'technical community' > decide that such a matter of utmost importance to people and countries > outside the US is simply 'political window dressing'. Because they are volunteers who engineer what they think is the best solution. You are welcome to join the DNSEXT WG list and state your case and try to change the DNSSEC protocol. It is ridiculous. And > whose cost/benefit analysis is it? Who decides the social and political > costs and benefits? I think that was drc's back of a fag packet calculation. Mine agreed with his. Whose political and social interests does this > 'technical community', which thinks as you say it thinks, represent. If they > think they are experts in technical matters, can they, by a similar logic, > allow the possibilities that others may know more than them about social, > economic, cultural and political matters, and the corresponding costs and > benefits. Am sure they will allow that possibility. That is why you are welcome to join. > > This is a misuse of 'technical power' which really is no technical power, it > is real economic, social and political power masquerading as technical > power, hiding behind technical people and the so called 'technical > community' in order to gain some legitimacy, or rather to avoid the blame of > illegitimacy. No, I think it is jusr drc telling you that a group of volunteers is NOT going to undo 15 years of work on their part so that a politically driven, technically unworkable solution can be implemented. DNSSEC isn't widely deployed (yet) adding on to it now for political reasons may just kill any momentum it does have. > > And if it is just 'political window dressing' why was the US gov so > interested in asserting that the current DNSSEC model is what it wants, and > none of the possible alternatives. And why does US gov want the IANA manager > to contractually agree that US gov will decide on the chief security officer > for this function. Youo'va asserted this before, is this in the NTIA RFP? Please send me the link and page number, I haven't seen this! > > > However, I might suggest the focus on DNSSEC in this regard is misplaced. As > mentioned in a previous note, DNSSEC merely provides the capability to > verify that a DNS response hasn't been modified from the point at which the > data was signed by the private key holder to the point where it was > validated (typically by ISPs). The data first must be created before it can > be signed. Once signed it still must be published. Even if the US were to > go "rogue", root servers and caches outside the US would hold the pre-rogue > root zone and it would be straightforward (technically at least) for a new > signing facility to be established in Geneva, Beijing, or wherever else is > felt to be more trustworthy. > > > This suggestion is like beginning to set up a fire department when the house > is on fire. Actors dont go wholesale rogue in the manner you picture it, > neither is such a radical from-the-scratch response possible in the real > world. This is a bit of a technical construction of the problem and its > solution. Actors go rogue in stages, carefully, for their rogue-ness to be > sustainable. As US has been going rogue on IP related international domain > seizures, (and attempting to formalise it through SOPA), as in the attempt > at 'Internet Kill Switch' legislation, as evident with ACTA, with use of > Stuxnet and flame, formalising un-disclosed security relationships with > google, facebook, twitter etc, with software companies......  What is your > criterion for declaring US gone rogue? Prmndr, it's a binary question, either the USG has tampered with the rootzone OR it has not. To date, it has NOT. I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA signed off on this change, the TCRs from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, recreate the keys that are used to sign the key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of readability), resign the new zone and then send it to Verisign for publication. In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Wed Jun 6 11:33:11 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] a journalist point of view about the IGF, MAG and last meeting in Geneva. Message-ID: <04d001cd43f9$b2071a20$16154e60$@uol.com.br> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/06/06/igf-leader?utm_source=.Nxt&utm_campaign=6 7c07a8c5c-Weekly_IGF_Issue6_5_2012&utm_medium=email Vanda -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Adam Peake Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de junho de 2012 02:46 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date Hugs to Milton Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" Messages seem to take a while to be delivered to the list, I'm sure mine won't be the first on this subject. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jun 6 12:20:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:20:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 10:21:05 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >Also as I read through the language quickly i see a fair number of things that are ambiguous enough that they could end up concerning me once I >had done some more work to understand what they are actually saying and what the techno-policy implications are. You only have to recall the recent controversy about what "Enhanced Cooperation" means, to realise that the words are quite important, and need to send a clear message to people ten years+ in the future about what it was they intended to say. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jun 6 12:18:31 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:18:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <20120606141122.275D6819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20120606141122.275D6819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20120606141122.275D6819F at quill.bollow.ch>, at 16:11:22 on Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Norbert Bollow writes >I read one of the proposed amendments as trying to give ITU the power >to define what is "spam, malware, etc." in a way that automatically >gets incorporated by reference into international law: > >:: harm to technical facilities and personnel shall be construed to >:: include spam, malware, etc. as defined in relevant ITU-T >:: Recommendations (as the case may be), as well as malicious code >:: transmitted by any telecommunication facility or technology, >:: including Internet and Internet Protocol. > >(CWG/54/4.13) It might be more helpful if they used the recognised term (UBE or Unsolicited Bulk Email). This is the latest version of a document I helped pilot through the system as long as 12 years ago: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-409 If for no other reason than in popular culture "Spam" now also includes excessive work-related communications from one's colleagues, as well as junk mail from fraudsters and ill-educated or ill-mannered marketers. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 12:41:05 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:41:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hu, for some reason, i cannot quote correctly. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:00 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi David, > > DRC > No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. > > ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US > Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the top-level > domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level domain removed. >  That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent to the US Dept. of > Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that existing policies and processes > were followed, and when approved that request is forwarded to Verisign as > the Root Zone Manager for that TLD's entry in the root zone to be deleted. >  At that point, the modified zone file is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone > Manager with a key that is held by (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) > and pushed to the 13 root servers that will make the modified root zone > available to the Internet. > > PJS > All actors you mention are subject to US jurisdiction (I will come to the > 3 > non US root servers later) I think that WIDE, RIPE and Autonomica may have different opinions than you. PJS and therefore if US government wants and orders > something it applies to all of them.  So the point is, US gov can do it. did you NOT read drc statement above? I will paraphrase: 1. IF a ccTLD requests removal of their TLD, IANA CAN request that it be removed. 2. The NTIA would validate that the removal followed policy 3. Request fwded to Verisign for actual editing of file 4. IANA must resign newzone 5. Publication to rootservers This is a far cry from "US gov can do it." DRC > The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an attempt > by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to modify a > response > from a root server can be detected. > > > This seems to suggest that modifications to query responses made by > someone > who *does* hold the root zone's private key (ie root zone manager, which > is > under contract of US gov, and therefore means the US gov) will not be > detected. This is not suggested at all. That is the problem. And what I read from your email is that due > to DNSSEC operation, now US gov can not only remove an entire cctld or > gtld, > but can modify root zone responses to specific websites level queries, neither are true. > which > is more or less removing them (as we will discuss later) . Is it not so? I > was afraid, but unsure, that something like this may now have been made > possible. Now, from your email, I am clear about it. Thanks for it. (No > irony intended.) no, in fact, you are not at all clear as to how DNSSEC works! > > DRC >  Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to > top-level > domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked 'what's the > address for "foo.example.com"' respond with "don't know, but ask the name > servers for .COM and here is a list of those name servers"). > > PJS > You say 'almost always' which leaves the possibility - with an actor with > the relevant intention, and the power of the US gov - that such a referral > - > 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' - may not be directed to the > concerned tld name server. It may simply be terminated in say, a notice by > US custom's authority or US State Dept. Am I right. No, once again, you are incorrect. The root zone only "knows" where .com is.. It doesn't "know" where foo.example.com is or even example.com! > > DRC > DNSSEC allows validating resolvers (typically operated by ISPs) to verify > that no one has tried to insert bogus data in that referral. > > An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow > subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able to > insert something inappropriate into the root zone, > > > yes, that possible eventuality  is 'the' problem with unilateral > oversight, > it is not a mere side issue..... > > > the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and > with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) > would > be forced to make a decision: publish the "secure" root zone with the > inappropriate data or refuse to publish the entire zone.  If such a > subversion were to take place, I suspect a majority of root server > operators > (yes, even many of those in the US) would choose the latter with > consequences so unappealing as to be comparable with Mutual Assured > Destruction doctrine. > > PJS > It is here we differ, because in saying 'I suspect' you are expressing an > opinion, which I am not at all able to agree with. I am quite sure that > the > three outside root server operators will go along, however unhappy they > may > be in doing so, because as you yourself put it, not going along with have > catastrophic consequneces for the Internet. The website or websites that > US > may choose to hit I repeat, mucking with the rootzone is NOT hitting "website or websites". The USG seemingly can do this via other means. PJS will be of relatively much much less 'global' economic > and > political consequence - though they may be of life and death importance to > some people, groups, or country(s). Rather than interfering so drastically > with whole of the Internet, all concerned actors will simply comply. This is also conjecture or "opinion". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Jun 6 12:59:30 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:59:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim's right on this. And, if I may note once more - there is a trusted human override in the inner workings of the guts of the net of nets: Meaning, the 'root server operators' are not autonamatons. I quote: the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and > with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) Meaning, ultimately, the trusted (redundant and distributed) geeky folks some of you worry about have the responsibility to keep the whole thing up and inter-operating. As long as that remains the case - which is a design feature and not an accident - then we are all, relatively speaking of course, safe from anyone trying to take over anything. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Hu, for some reason, i cannot quote correctly. On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:00 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi David, > > DRC > No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. > > ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US > Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the top-level > domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level domain removed. > That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent to the US Dept. of > Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that existing policies and processes > were followed, and when approved that request is forwarded to Verisign as > the Root Zone Manager for that TLD's entry in the root zone to be deleted. > At that point, the modified zone file is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone > Manager with a key that is held by (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) > and pushed to the 13 root servers that will make the modified root zone > available to the Internet. > > PJS > All actors you mention are subject to US jurisdiction (I will come to the > 3 > non US root servers later) I think that WIDE, RIPE and Autonomica may have different opinions than you. PJS and therefore if US government wants and orders > something it applies to all of them. So the point is, US gov can do it. did you NOT read drc statement above? I will paraphrase: 1. IF a ccTLD requests removal of their TLD, IANA CAN request that it be removed. 2. The NTIA would validate that the removal followed policy 3. Request fwded to Verisign for actual editing of file 4. IANA must resign newzone 5. Publication to rootservers This is a far cry from "US gov can do it." DRC > The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an attempt > by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to modify a > response > from a root server can be detected. > > > This seems to suggest that modifications to query responses made by > someone > who *does* hold the root zone's private key (ie root zone manager, which > is > under contract of US gov, and therefore means the US gov) will not be > detected. This is not suggested at all. That is the problem. And what I read from your email is that due > to DNSSEC operation, now US gov can not only remove an entire cctld or > gtld, > but can modify root zone responses to specific websites level queries, neither are true. > which > is more or less removing them (as we will discuss later) . Is it not so? I > was afraid, but unsure, that something like this may now have been made > possible. Now, from your email, I am clear about it. Thanks for it. (No > irony intended.) no, in fact, you are not at all clear as to how DNSSEC works! > > DRC > Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to > top-level > domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked 'what's the > address for "foo.example.com"' respond with "don't know, but ask the name > servers for .COM and here is a list of those name servers"). > > PJS > You say 'almost always' which leaves the possibility - with an actor with > the relevant intention, and the power of the US gov - that such a referral > - > 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' - may not be directed to the > concerned tld name server. It may simply be terminated in say, a notice by > US custom's authority or US State Dept. Am I right. No, once again, you are incorrect. The root zone only "knows" where .com is.. It doesn't "know" where foo.example.com is or even example.com! > > DRC > DNSSEC allows validating resolvers (typically operated by ISPs) to verify > that no one has tried to insert bogus data in that referral. > > An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow > subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able to > insert something inappropriate into the root zone, > > > yes, that possible eventuality is 'the' problem with unilateral > oversight, > it is not a mere side issue..... > > > the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and > with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) > would > be forced to make a decision: publish the "secure" root zone with the > inappropriate data or refuse to publish the entire zone. If such a > subversion were to take place, I suspect a majority of root server > operators > (yes, even many of those in the US) would choose the latter with > consequences so unappealing as to be comparable with Mutual Assured > Destruction doctrine. > > PJS > It is here we differ, because in saying 'I suspect' you are expressing an > opinion, which I am not at all able to agree with. I am quite sure that > the > three outside root server operators will go along, however unhappy they > may > be in doing so, because as you yourself put it, not going along with have > catastrophic consequneces for the Internet. The website or websites that > US > may choose to hit I repeat, mucking with the rootzone is NOT hitting "website or websites". The USG seemingly can do this via other means. PJS will be of relatively much much less 'global' economic > and > political consequence - though they may be of life and death importance to > some people, groups, or country(s). Rather than interfering so drastically > with whole of the Internet, all concerned actors will simply comply. This is also conjecture or "opinion". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 6 14:05:17 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:05:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F872585D174F2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4FC4B266.1090307@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217D7DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itf orchange .net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:00 AM, parminder wrote: > So the point is, US gov can do it. Doesnt matter if ICANN alone can do it or not. The initial statement that caused me to comment was that ICANN could do it. I was trying to point out that ICANN can't. Given the root zone is generated by Verisign, a US-based company, it is clear that the USG can order an inappropriately modified root zone to be created and signed. However as I tried to explain, that doesn't mean the zone will be used. >> The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an attempt by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to modify a response from a root server can be detected. > > This seems to suggest that modifications to query responses made by someone who *does* hold the root zone's private key (ie root zone manager, which is under contract of US gov, and therefore means the US gov) will not be detected. That is the problem. As the data in the root zone is (and must be) public and is (relatively) small and mostly static, numerous folks on the Internet monitor its contents (one such is https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/data/zfr/root). An inappropriate change to the root zone would be detected, regardless of whether the root zone is signed. What DNSSEC provides is a mechanism that allows for unsigned changes (e.g., "Bank of America is now using an IP address owned by the Russian Business Network") made by a "man in the middle" between the root servers and the servers typically operated by ISPs that translate names to addresses (etc) to be detected and automatically discarded. DNSSEC's primary reason for existence is to protect against bad people inserting bad data into ISP's caches. It isn't a mechanism that has any significant impact on Internet governance. > And what I read from your email is that due to DNSSEC operation, now US gov can not only remove an entire cctld or gtld, but can modify root zone responses to specific websites level queries, which is more or less removing them (as we will discuss later) . Is it not so? I was afraid, but unsure, that something like this may now have been made possible. By virtue of the fact that the root zone manager is (and always has been) operated in the US, the US Government has _always_ had that capability. DNSSEC has no impact, positive or negative, on that ability. DNSSEC is a red herring in this context. >> Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to top-level domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' respond with "don't know, but ask the name servers for .COM and here is a list of those name servers"). > > You say 'almost always' which leaves the possibility - with an actor with the relevant intention, and the power of the US gov - that such a referral - 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' - may not be directed to the concerned tld name server. It may simply be terminated in say, a notice by US custom's authority or US State Dept. Am I right. Not really. To clarify the "almost always" was in reference to the fact that the root servers host zones other than the root zone (e.g., the root-servers.net zone). While it is true the USG could force Verisign to insert "War and Peace" into the root zone, it is wildly unlikely that the resolvers (the servers primarily operated by ISPs that do lookups on behalf of end users) of the world would act in a way that would have any positive impact. Ignoring the guaranteed freak out resulting from the insertion of non-referral information into the root zone, as a result of the Verisign "Sitefinder" incident, some resolvers have implemented mechanisms to ignore non-referral responses. Further, as mentioned, if the USG were to force this situation, it is extremely unlikely all of the root servers would accept the zone, or (I suspect) in at least one case, even be permitted to accept the zone. >> An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able to insert something inappropriate into the root zone, > yes, that possible eventuality is 'the' problem with unilateral oversight, it is not a mere side issue..... The point I've been trying to make is that in the context of root zone management, there is no "unilateral". The root zone operates by the cooperative activities of the TLD administrators, the USG, ICANN (as IANA functions operator), Verisign (as root zone manager), the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers. This operation is overseen by _anyone who cares_. You can, if you like, download the root zone yourself, run whatever checks you would like on it, and use it, modified or not. An unknown number of people already do this. Any attempt by any single actor involved in root zone management to do something bad would result in a highly visible hue-and-cry and people moving to alternatives (if they care). > It is here we differ, because in saying 'I suspect' you are expressing an opinion, which I am not at all able to agree with. I am quite sure that the three outside root server operators will go along, however unhappy they may be in doing so, because as you yourself put it, not going along with have catastrophic consequneces for the Internet. Should the USG force Verisign to distribute a zone with inappropriate data, each root server operator would individually decide whether to accept that zone. If they choose not to, the data already existent (without the inappropriate change) on the root server would continue to be served for a bit less than 604800 seconds (1 week). This would allow for plenty of time for an alternative 'emergency' root zone management system to be stood up. > I simply see no possibility of non US root server operators not accepting the upstream changes, whatever noises they may make while doing so. > (And your claim that 'even many of those in the US' will refuse to comply in completely invalid because they will be subject to any US gov order with the necessary legal force). I suspect you're not familiar with the root server operators (:-)). With the exception of Verisign, none of the root server operators are under any sort of legal obligation to do anything, much less provide root service for data they know to be bad. Instead of serving bad data, I am certain that at least 3 and more likely at least 8 (all of the non-USG and Verisign) root servers would simply decide volunteering to provide that service is no longer in their best interests. The USG would then be forced to acquire the IP addresses used to provide root service. This will likely require non-trivial legal interactions, providing yet more time for an alternative to be established. Realistically, this simply is not going to happen. > After reading your email I am even more convinced that US can hit not only complete cctlds ot tlds, but also individual websites, because of the DNSSEC structure, ... Hmm. It would seem your mind is made up and I gather nothing that I might say will convince you otherwise. Unfortunate. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 6 15:05:16 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:05:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.ne t> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:56 AM, parminder wrote: > That exactly is why technical standards development and CIR requires political oversight. How can, what you call as, the 'technical community' decide that such a matter of utmost importance to people and countries outside the US is simply 'political window dressing'. It is ridiculous. I suspect you have a misunderstanding about how Internet technical standards are set. Internet standards are set by "the community" -- folks (usually, but not exclusively, network engineers and software developers) who are interested in addressing a particular issue they believe exist get together, come up with a protocol or two, implement those protocols, and deploy the result. If others agree that it is an interesting problem and the proposed protocols actually solve it, they'll join in. If not, the protocols and implementations will fade away due to lack of interest. If this matter actually is of "utmost importance to people and countries outside the US", then there will be a _huge_ community that will define the standards and various folks who implement the standards will fall over themselves to get product out to that community. I am merely stating that I suspect it is unlikely that this actually is of "utmost importance to people and countries outside the US", the vast, vast majority of which probably have a few other things to worry about (like _real_ critical resources like food, shelter, water, electricity, jobs, reliable telecoms, Internet capacity, free flow of information, etc) than whether or not there are five DNSSEC signing keys instead of one. > And whose cost/benefit analysis is it? The folks who would spend the time to revise the specification, implement those revisions, and buy and deploy the resulting products. > This is a misuse of 'technical power' which really is no technical power, it is real economic, social and political power masquerading as technical power, hiding behind technical people and the so called 'technical community' in order to gain some legitimacy, or rather to avoid the blame of illegitimacy. Err, no. It is merely the reality of bottom-up processes. The fact that folks who do the work and sell the products aren't interested in areas that may be of particular interest to you is something that I've learned to accept. > And if it is just 'political window dressing' why was the US gov so interested in asserting that the current DNSSEC model is what it wants, and none of the possible alternatives. I'm not entirely sure which alternatives you're mentioning, but if you're talking about the DNSSEC key management model, they didn't want to change the existing root zone management structures. > And why does US gov want the IANA manager to contractually agree that US gov will decide on the chief security officer for this function... Does this look like matters that can be called 'political window dressing'. My understanding is that as a USG contract, the USG has the right to approve/disapprove pretty much any hire they feel is key. However, this is irrelevant. My "political window dressing" comment was related to modifying the DNSSEC specifications to allow for a greater number of signing keys in order to address a concern that is already addressed with existing mechanisms, would require a very expensive redeployment of the DNS system as a whole, and does not (as far as I can tell) provide any significant additional _technical_ capabilities. > Actors dont go wholesale rogue in the manner you picture it, neither is such a radical from-the-scratch response possible in the real world. [...] Actors go rogue in stages, carefully, for their rogue-ness to be sustainable. I agree yet the hypotheticals posed to date have implied instantaneous rogue behaviors on the part of the USG. > As US has been going rogue on IP related international domain seizures, (and attempting to formalise it through SOPA), as in the attempt at 'Internet Kill Switch' legislation, as evident with ACTA, with use of Stuxnet and flame, formalising un-disclosed security relationships with google, facebook, twitter etc, with software companies...... What is your criterion for declaring US gone rogue? In the context of what I was commenting on, demanding the modification of the root zone outside of existing policies and processes to address domestic US concerns. I get that you don't like the US. That's OK, I'd agree politicians do lots of boneheaded things although I don't think the US has a monopoly on boneheaded politicians. Fortunately, the Internet is decentralized so the actions of one country are not fatal to the Internet as a whole and in those areas where centralization is useful for efficient operation, the important bit is to ensure that there is decentralized oversight. I gather that we disagree as to how far the important bit of decentralized oversight have been addressed to date. That's fine and a useful area for discussion. I personally believe it is critical to focus on real areas of concern and to do so with as many facts as possible, not on emotions, preconceived notions, and political rhetoric. But that's probably just me... 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 drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 6 15:21:17 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:21:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: > I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand > experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely > event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA > signed off on this change, the TCRs > from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, > recreate the keys that are used to sign the > key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of > readability), resign the new zone and then send > it to Verisign for publication. As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the Internet. If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral action. The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of keeping the USG from going rogue. > In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have > to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. Exactly. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 6 17:16:48 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:16:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Current State of the Internet 2012 Message-ID: A very interesting biz oriented take on the current state of the Internet (and the Internet enabled revolution... M -----Original Message----- Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 3:09 PM Subject: interesting sheets from Mary Meeker >From The Raw Data site: "For many years, the most assiduous provider of data about the ongoing revolution has been Mary Meeker , an industry analyst who once worked for Morgan Stanley, the investment bank that acted as lead underwriter for the Netscape IPO in August 1995 (and thereby triggered the first internet boom). She began making an annual conference presentation, “The Internet Report”, which acquired legendary status in the industry because it distilled from the froth some elements of reality. Ms Meeker is now a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s leading venture capital firms, but she has not abandoned her old habits. Last week she presented her latest annual report – now labelled “Internet Trends” – at the Wall Street Journal‘s All Things Digital conference in California" -- Motto: "There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data" Source: ‏ @professorkitteh on Twitter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jun 6 23:56:57 2012 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 00:56:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50AB84F7-A6DD-43CB-8F6D-53B443CE7AC8@entropia.blog.br> I reinforce the Avri's recommendation, since as we can't be ensure that this "leak" was the real draft, or the draft that was released to demobilize the activists state of alert. []s Joao Carlos Caribe Movimento Mega Nao Brazil Em 06/06/2012, às 11:21, Avri Doria escreveu: > Hi, > > My recommendation is continued caution, continuing to pay attention and continuing to try for proper levels of transparency. We know more is coming, and we know from talking to peopel in various countries that they want more. So all I was saying was absence at this point signifies nothing. > > Beleive I will not posit a threat from WCIT after the WCIT has ended. > > Also as I read through the language quickly i see a fair number of things that are ambiguous enough that they could end up concerning me once I had done some more work to understand what they are actually saying and what the techno-policy implications are. > > I have not finished my analysis, but I look forward to seeing yours. BTW, my concerns have always had more to do with the way the Internet actually works than the fluff around the edges about how entries are approved into or out of the database managed by DNS. > > avri > > On 6 Jun 2012, at 09:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> So this means that even though there are no proposals dealing explicitly with taking critical Internet resources we still have to believe that the ITU is out to take over ICANN et al, because such proposal “could” exist but is cleverly being hidden by the evil conspirators…? >> >> No offense, but this is beginning to sound like people who predict the end of the world, then when the world doesn’t end, they shift the date back. >> >> Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly things that (could) affect the Internet in there. But they have to do with negotiating (or blurring) the boundary between layer 1 and 2 telecoms and layer 3 and up. E.g., p. 16 the definition of a global telecom service; e.g., p 21, MOD 30 “Member states/operating agencies shall have the right to know which international routes are used for carrying traffic.” (Almost certainly written by someone who hasn’t a clue how BGP works.) >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:15 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:46, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hugs to Milton >>> >>> >>> Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" >> >> While this document is a start and I am glad someone dropped it in Milton's lap for sharing, on the cover page it says: >> >>> Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. >> >> So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not yet 'incorporated into this version' >> >> >> I am hoping that Milton's source continue to drop revised versions of this document on him. >> >> avri >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 7 01:38:13 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 07:38:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from David Conrad on Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:05:16 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <799C3C35-E584-4561-AB1E-B09CF6260254@ista > <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.ne t> Message-ID: <20120607053813.4FB72819F@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > If this matter actually is of "utmost importance to people and > countries outside the US", then there will be a _huge_ community > that will define the standards and various folks who implement the > standards will fall over themselves to get product out to that > community. Indeed. Well the level of interest is at least high enough that not long ago, an official of the European Commission asked on this list (if I understood him right) about whether it would be possible to decentralize the root signing function across several countries. To that I replied that yes, it would be possible in principle, but it would require modification of DNSSEC. John pointed out that the required engineering work could be difficult in view of potential problems related to datagram size. If the level of interest is as great as Parminder asserts, this information should indeed result in significant resources getting allocated to that engineering work. I personally will be surprised if this happens anytime soon (my impression is that the level of interest is more on a "nice to have" / "this is something that we rant about if the feature is not there, but we're not willing to pay for the cost of getting it" level) but we'll see. 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 7 02:32:09 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:32:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer Message-ID: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide what operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are certified for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any operating system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued certificate. Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and device manufacturers will recognise by default are Microsoft's. This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux - otherwise they simply won't run at all. If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical implications of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not permit anyone from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating system (or even to distribute a version of Linux that they compile from source) for users of Windows 8 certified computers. Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating system, because home-grown operating systems won't run. Will the IGC take a stand against this? -- *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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Jun 7 03:20:18 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:20:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120607053813.4FB72819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120607053813.4FB72819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Norbert, dear all, On Thursday, June 7, 2012, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Indeed. Well the level of interest is at least high enough that not > long ago, an official of the European Commission asked on this list > (if I understood him right) about whether it would be possible to > decentralize the root signing function across several countries. To > that I replied that yes, it would be possible in principle, but it > would require modification of DNSSEC. John pointed out that the > required engineering work could be difficult in view of potential > problems related to datagram size. I believe you are referring to me (I don't think there are so many other officials of the European Commission writing on this list :) (As I wrote many times and as it is clearly indicated in the .signature of my emails, when I write here, unless I specifically say otherwise, I am expressing personal positions, not the positions of the EU Commission. This is very important for everyone to clearly understand, otherwise my ability to engage in conversations will be severely limited. But maybe this would not be a problem :). On the specific point you mention, I referred to the possibility for multiple countries to have a formal role in the process of modifying the root zone. DNSSEC signing is an element of that but, for reasons highlighted by others, not necessarily the most important one. Let me also point out that, whether the CS and technical "communities" find it stupid or not, politics (national and international) are characterized by a high degree of symbolism and theater play. That's not all there is to it of course, but sometimes process modifications that a techie may consider irrelevant can have a huge impact in appeasing public authorities. I know this is not necessarily a priority for everyone, although in terms of real-politik I would suggest it should. > If the level of interest is as great as Parminder asserts, this > information should indeed result in significant resources getting > allocated to that engineering work. I personally will be surprised > if this happens anytime soon (my impression is that the level of > interest is more on a "nice to have" / "this is something that we > rant about if the feature is not there, but we're not willing to > pay for the cost of getting it" level) but we'll I am not clear whether you are suggesting that public authorities should allocate resources here. Best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jun 6 11:05:37 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:05:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Our internet is at risk In-Reply-To: References: <8CF0D533D552BEE-C1C-17E1@webmail-d082.sysops.aol.com> <07EA34DE-3366-4726-8113-B321FFAAD6AE@acm.org> <20120604122441.EFFBD819F@quill.bollow.ch> <166FE2F4-6408-4BD2-BCC9-4C39B21533D3@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218204C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <96678208-395E-432B-9A4B-1D8811841885@acm.org> <4FCCE889.2040800@cafonso.ca> <054AADA7-46D5-43D2-BBB9-6911C7E15B61@acm.org> Message-ID: At 04:53 06/06/2012, Robert Guerra wrote: >+1 > >On 2012-06-05, at 10:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>On 5 Jun 2012, at 22:19, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>As this thread is loaded with complaints about ITU and WCIT >>>I just hoped to bring attention on an ITU initiative for more transparency. >> >>I sometimes wonder how much further the ITU would have gotten with >>its various quests for relevance if it had transformed itself in >>the image of WSIS and the Tunis Agenda and made genuine strides >>toward multistakeholder participation during the last 7 years. >>A missed opportunity I think. In june 2003 I formalized the "I-Sector" concept with ITU peoples, and decided to give it a try under the form of the http://web.archive.org/web/20030805161644/http://i-sector.org/. I resumed the site as http://i-sector.info if this may be of use to anyone. A few top people adhered to the prep-team, but there was no-interest on the Internet side everyone wanting to influence the icannatlarge.org I had also taken over, which lead to the ICANN Atlarge fantasy. When ICANN has settled for a more adequate less hubristic strategy, there alsways is the Atlarge Association we registered in Versailles and atlarge.org to welcome the Digisphere atlarge users. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Jun 7 06:15:05 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:15:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <50AB84F7-A6DD-43CB-8F6D-53B443CE7AC8@entropia.blog.br> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50AB84F7-A6DD-43CB-8F6D-53B443CE7AC8@entropia.blog.br> Message-ID: Indeed, one can never be sure with the ITU PSYOP (Psychological Operations) Department... For those who are not into this kind of stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations. Or even closer to Internet Governance: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/psyops/e-psyops.pdf. Best, Andrea On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Joao Carlos Caribe wrote: > I reinforce the Avri's recommendation, since as we can't be ensure that this "leak" was the real draft, or the draft that was released to demobilize the activists state of alert. > > []s > Joao Carlos Caribe > Movimento Mega Nao > Brazil > > > Em 06/06/2012, às 11:21, Avri Doria escreveu: > >> Hi, >> >> My recommendation is continued caution, continuing to pay attention and continuing to try for proper levels of transparency.  We know more is coming, and we know from talking to peopel in various countries that they want more.  So all I was saying was absence at this point signifies nothing. >> >> Beleive I will not posit a threat from WCIT after the WCIT has ended. >> >> Also as I read through the language quickly i see a fair number of things that are ambiguous enough that they could end up concerning me once I had done some more work to understand what they are actually saying and what the techno-policy implications are. >> >> I have not finished my analysis, but I look forward to seeing yours.  BTW, my concerns have always had more to do with the way the Internet actually works than the fluff around the edges about how entries are approved into or out of the database managed by DNS. >> >> avri >> >> On 6 Jun 2012, at 09:15, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> >>> So this means that even though there are no proposals dealing explicitly with taking critical Internet resources we still have to believe that the ITU is out to take over ICANN et al, because such proposal “could” exist but is cleverly being hidden by the evil conspirators…? >>> >>> No offense, but this is beginning to sound like people who predict the end of the world, then when the world doesn’t end, they shift the date back. >>> >>> Don’t get me wrong, there are clearly things that (could) affect the Internet in there. But they have to do with negotiating (or blurring) the boundary between layer 1 and 2 telecoms and layer 3 and up. E.g., p. 16 the definition of a global telecom service; e.g., p 21, MOD 30 “Member states/operating agencies shall have the right to know which international routes are used for carrying traffic.” (Almost certainly written by someone who hasn’t a clue how BGP works.) >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 6:15 AM >>> To: IGC >>> Subject: Re: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date >>> >>> >>> On 6 Jun 2012, at 01:46, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Hugs to Milton >>>> >>>> >>>> Chairman's document "ANTICIPATED FINAL DRAFT OF THE FUTURE ITRS" >>> >>> While this document is a start and I am glad someone dropped it in Milton's lap for sharing, on the cover page it says: >>> >>>> Proposals regarding certain articles have not yet been incorporated into this version. >>> >>> So the absence of proposals related to critical Internet resources and protocols may mean they do not exist, or may just mean that they are not yet 'incorporated into this version' >>> >>> >>> I am hoping that Milton's source continue to drop revised versions of this document on him. >>> >>> avri >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 7 07:41:38 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:11:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] "oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD09372.1070805@itforchange.net> On Monday 04 June 2012 10:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > */[Milton L Mueller] Well, yes. You slap everyone in the face with a > call to arms that implies we are all idiots, I reply in kind. Now that > we've got each other's attention, maybe we can have a rational > dialogue. /* > A very weak excuse, Milton, but I'll pass it, as long as we are, hopefully, on the rational dialogue path. > > *//* > > */ /* > > Your submission says, there should be a US led international agreement > on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by what does 'US led' > mean. Pl explain. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] OK. US now controls the root and ICANN via the > IANA contract. If we are to move beyond that, the US has to take the > initiative; i.e., the US has to say, "we are willing and ready to > consider a new model." Remember, those were comments in a U.S. > proceeding, urging the US to take that leadership. /* > I have no problem with your statement as comments in a US proceeding, and thus at that i time I did not critique it. But now, in response to my email, you indicated the same documents and its recs as the possible way to go in the 'international' (or transnational) discussion that we started to have on this list, and thus the nature of my responses to it. Now, if US led just means, US needs to agree 'we are ready to consider a new model' , yes, that is obvious. Although, it is important to note that civil society starts proposing models and build moral and political pressure much before governments show their readiness to act, and I can quote innumerable instances of this..... We dont wait to first see the clear expression of readiness before we make our concrete proposals and build moral/ political pressure. Also, I was wondering if what you call as a US led international agreement will be the kind of political fiction like AoC, where US signs something with a private party and tries to sell it as an international thing, or it will be the real thing, as real agreements between affected parties are, with international legal basis and force. With your above clarification, I now think it is the latter kind that you mean, but you may clarify. > *//* > > */ /* > > I can only understand international agreements under international > systems, like the UN. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] And, even on this list, we can see how poorly it > works when the UN or a UN agency like the ITU tries to take the > initiative. It becomes a "takeover" proposal and it plays into the > hands of US-based nationalists. And it seems surprisingly easy to get > many others to jump on that bandwagon -- see, e.g., Avri's recent > comments on the ITU. Ergo, "US-led" is required. /* > OK, now I think you dont have in your mind what I would see as 'real' international agreements . What exactly is it that you are suggesting. Pl be clear. What exactly is the US-led thing you propose. As to how UN thing does or does not work, you present a very one sided picture. The world in general is not so anti UN as a very limited view of a narrow set of very vocal players in the IG space may suggest. I can show you many campaigns from across the world, very popular and well supported ones, that keep calling for a greater UN role in areas like trade, climate change, IP, health, human rights etc. > *//* > > */ /* > > I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring > adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the > international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] I think Bill Drake answered this claim very > effectively. That is not what "oversight" means in historical context > or to most of the people using it. To most govts, oversight means > imposing or injecting their "public policy" concerns onto Internet > governance institutions, collectively or individually. So we are back > to the "public policy" problem. /* > I still think WGIG saw oversight, in itself, in a relatively narrow manner, even if connected to broader global pubic policy (GPP) issues. We also know that US gov/ US media uses the term oversight in its narrow meaning. Now, we cant keep on insisting that this term has to be accepted to mean as some the actors we may not agree with take it to mean. These are only /some/ actors.... As for 'injecting public policy concerns onto IG institutions', you do agree later in your email that 'FoE and anti-trust' are public policy concerns and they, you insist, /must/ be injected onto IG institutions. Milton, the paradox is clear. I agree with you that the processes and procedures of developing public policy and means of, to use your words, injecting them onto IG institutions, cannot be ad hoc, and should be very very clear, process and relevant law bound. However, you cant really be serious in proposing that what you see as public policy is good and anything else is bad. In essence, this is what you are saying . Lets be rational :). > *//* > > */ /* > > */Now we all know, or should know, that most govts still believe they > should be setting public policy for the internet./* > Huh. So you think that governments shouldn't be setting public policy for the Internet! In that case, I must alert and warn you that there is someone masquerading as you, Milton Mueller, very active in the civil society advisory committee of OECD's CCICP which is one body most active in enabling some, most powerful, governments in 'setting public policy for the Internet'. You must intervene immediately and stop him. and the concerned governments, from doing this most diabolical work. > */ (It's in the Tunis Agenda) From years of experience, including > especially form watching the GAC and an IGF workshop on that topic, I > have come to understand what it means./* > Milton, we are slipping here into straight-forward anti-governmentalism, as anti-democraticism. With years of experience with the Indian government (and I am sure yours would be same for the UG gov) I have come to understand the pettinesses of politicians, their proclivity to corruption etc etc..... however neither have I stopped engaging, very actively, with the Indian democratic governance system, nor have I the least doubt that if I were to be a part of the writing a new Indian constitution, it would in many/most of its essential features would be similar to what it is today. > */ It means, "we want to alter any ICANN decision to go along with > whatever concerns we as national governments have, whatever political > winds are blowing us at the moment and whatever lobbyist made the > greatest impression on us." It does NOT mean "ensuring adherence to a > fixed legal framework." Ensuring adherence to a legal framework is > more like what courts do, not the politicians and ministers/govt > bureaucrats who would staff an "oversight agency." /* > Courts do it on the basis of laws made by politicians/ ministers/ gov bureaucrats. As I have been discussing, it is possible to make a CIR oversight body with the sole role of ensuring adherence to a legal framework, and not allowing it to make ad hoc interferences at all. An institutional design that can ensure this objective is possible and lets work towards it with faith in global democracy and global institutions. > *//* > > */ /* > > In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to be quite confused > between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and at the same time > putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to FoE regulation, > anti-trust law etc (through the international agreement). This is > subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Yes and no. Yes, I agree that codifying FoE and > antitrust is in effect a policy. No, because the "policy" embedded in > FoE and antitrust rules is stable, well-defined and fixed, not > subjected to new formulation and change based on passing political > vicissitudes./* > There are many other policy objectives that have long term stable political consensus around then in modern political thought and practice. You just have a narrow ideological position here, which I cant share. But lets at least agree that it is just one ideological position, and your above propositions do not stem from any neutral rational logic. > */ In other words, we don't want a committee of governments that > reviews every ICANN decision and says "how does this conform to or > contribute to my current policy objectives?" Instead, we want a > dispute-driven (i.e., bottom up), court-like review process that says, > "someone has claimed that this particular action of ICANN violates > freedom of expression rights. Is this claim correct or not?"/* > Yes, but again, here is the Milton's version of appropriate public policy, and not such that is derived by a due, to the extent possible, democratic process..... However, As oft stated now, I do agree that the oversight body should have such a narrow 'legality and policy adherence assessing' role as you put it. > *//* > > */ /* > > */And if you want to ask me why I believe it is legitimate to codify > FoE and antitrust as the relevant policies, it is because I believe > those are the correct policies -- ones that will keep the internet and > the people who use it thriving./* > I understand that you believe these to be the 'only' relevant policies. But arent you a bit of bulldozing things here. I believe that some other policies are as basic - as, for instance, enshrined in many UN human rights instruments. So you think those are not relevant and correct policies for the Internet? Just to breach your narrow, arbitrary, construction, well, let me just name one - privacy...... > */ I imagine it would be hard to get Putin or the Iranian government > to agree on those, which is why I am _not_ in principle committed to a > pure intergovernmental process./* > Do you know with what dread the rest of the world reads the pronouncement of US's tea party notables.... this is one reason that I cant be persuaded by your entreaties that we all just submit to the US law. It is easy to denounce a system by pointing to the views of what may look like its worst actors, it can be done for any system. You know very well that one Russia and one Iran cannot make UN policy, can they?? Therefore your above line of 'reasoning' doesnt hold. Do you think the non US world is readier to be subject to a US led process then you are for a pure intergov UN process. Note however, that my and many other proposals on the table on oversight and broader GPP are rather multistakeholder. And I said that we must discuss actual elements of any MS proposals - for instance, do you see, say, a Microsoft rep play the same role as the Brazilain gov rep, for all kind of policy and oversight matters? > */ I think the more-liberal Internet can and should create its own > institutional framework and bypass the repressive and authoritarian > regimes if and when it can./* > And, by the same token, also bypass the unilateral regime of the US with one of the the world's worst record of not playing along with global rules and standard, and with a rabid IP stance and global design that, if implemented, would distort the global economic structure forever. Why does these points miss your censure, and you not see the need for bypassing this particular regime, which the rest of the world finds so oppressive. > *//* > > */ /* > > Then you seek " an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN > should operate", whereby you mean an body of US law. No we cant agree > here US law is made and can be changed by US legislature, and that > doesnt work for the rest of the world. The appropriate body has to be > of international law. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] it would be fine for me, /* > lets build on this agreement...... > */I used to believe the same thing, but then people who understand how > international law really works convinced me that it doesn't really > afford individuals much protection. /* > US law affords even much less protection to me, even if I were to disregard my principled opposition to its global application. > */Show me some cases, e.g., where the international legal system > really upheld an individual's free expression rights in a timely and > effective manner and I might change my views. /* > We see international legal system increasingly in operation even in criminal matter, like war crimes (a different matter that US doesnt accept this legal system). Traditionally, UN has mostly given policy frameworks that have informed national legal systems, and I know many instances, for instance in case of human right, women's rights, that these UN policy frameworks have had very far reaching impacts. I havent studied legal systems that would have had to provide direct and immediate redress - in matters like marine routes and the involved international jurisdiction, global trade disputes, IP disputes etc.... but I understand that they do work. In case of the Internet, the pressing global nature of the problems is a new thing, and as far as we are satisfied with policy development frameworks, implementation vis a vis to redress etc is an issue of contextual institutional design, and that is why, in the present case, we should discuss how the international CIR oversight body be consituted etc. > *//* > > > You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use California > law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt work for me. > > */[Milton L Mueller] only with respect to membership and certain > procedural rights. I agree that this aspect of the proposal is flawed. > There could be better proposals, but I haven't seen one. /* > No, it is not only in these matters that you mention that your proposed system is flawed. It is undemocratic, subject to US policy and law making processes, in which I have less faith than you perhaps have in UN processes. Milton, I know you have a strong native political instinct and strong political views. Answer this honestly ' if you were not a US citizen, would you have accepted this arrangement'. I am sure you would not have. So, pl be rational here :). > > *//* > > > I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want > people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US > national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global > resource at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek to > subvert relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA with > in favour of international arbitration. Why being so stingy about > sticking to national law and redress systems in this case. Why cant we > have an international redress system. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] If you are talking about ICANN, I think most of > the redress would be internal to ICANN's processes, and thus would be > fully international./* > What policy/ legal basis is this redress based on. I remember a NCUC statement that ICANN should never take a political/ policy view of things, and limited by its mandate, only take technical/ financial view. Do I remember wrong. So, on what basis would the redress be provided if it involves a policy/ legal issue, even if FoE and anti-trust based. > */ E.g., the policy making bodies are governed by ICANN bylaws; the > Independent Review Process was an arbitration that was not conducted > under California Corp. law but under ICANN's own defined procedures. I > am just talking about falling back to Cal. law for some basic forms of > accountability regarding procedure and membership. /* > We keep coming back to the same point. US law is not acceptable. Milton, you reject UN systems because you suspect that a few authoritarian states will make the wrong kind of policies. You want us to remain assured that US gov will never make wrong kind of policies. Do you think this works for us, non US citizens. You seem to favour the US system because of your preference for long term stable policy/ legal systems. However, if we were to approach it rationally, I think the US policy/ law making system is much more volatile that UN based one. Dont you think so. With the kind of laws that we have seen recently passed in the US, or on being on the brink of being passed, do you think it gives the world confidence in the US policy/ legal system. On the other hand, so laborious and consensus oriented are UN processes, with US and its allies having such a position of enviable strength in them ( a fact we seem to very easily ignored) that nothing other than such policy positions that have long term relatively stable political consensus in modern, but evolving, political though and practice, can get past these processes. > *//* > > */ /* > > */The FTA argument is a red herring, has nothing to do with me or my > position or what we are talking about here. /* > No, it isnt. The international arbitration processes that are being insisted upon in FTAs provide an example of increasing use of international redress mechanisms, an issue you again raised above. It is a different matter that I do not agree with the business-directed processes that actually get employed in case of FTAs. No reason however we cant have public interest oreinted interntional redress processes based on sound international law. parminder > *//* > > */ /* > > */Your turn./* > > *//* > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jun 7 08:07:59 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:07:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FD0999F.8030304@cafonso.ca> The giant corporate IP industry moves to convert the USA in a true dictatorship, run by the arbitrary decisions of the IP lobby. Now it plans not only to force us to purchase licences of Windows and its associated proprietary software but also prohibits us through the imposition of hardware locks to use our equipment for any other purpose. Of course the USA computer industry has no questions about this -- they are part of the IP dictatorship being consolidated in the US. Regarding Red Hat, they are agreeing to the lobby because they *sell* their product (in a package of services, as they cannot sell Linux and associated open source applications per se). The free equivalent of Red Hat is centOS, a FOSS version of RH especially oriented to servers which will not run on machines locked by Microsoft -- and RH will not be paying for this of course. We had Apple selling locked hardware products, but they did not go that far (so far) -- we (still) can install Linux on Mac boxes, and the FOSS community has managed even to run Android on iPhones. But who knows, they might as well do this as part of the consolidation of the IP dictatorship. The question is: which computer companies will bend to M$ on this, and which ones will continue to assemble unlocked equipment? And what are our options? "Resistance is futile", like Darth Vader used to say? Not even Arthur C. Clarke or Ray Bradbury imagined a an ICT dictatorship run by the private corporate intellectual property juggernaut controlling how we run our home or office communication and information devices... What are the governments eager to find ways to "control" the Internet saying and doing about this? What is the European Union (which sometimes accumulates some courage to confront Microsoft) doing about it? frt rgds --c.a. On 06/07/2012 03:32 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign > has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. > > Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide what > operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are certified > for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any operating > system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued certificate. > Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and device manufacturers > will recognise by default are Microsoft's. > > This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of > Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital > signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux - > otherwise they simply won't run at all. > > If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical implications > of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not permit anyone > from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating system (or even to > distribute a version of Linux that they compile from source) for users > of Windows 8 certified computers. > > Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against > Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or > Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using > older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating system, > because home-grown operating systems won't run. > > Will the IGC take a stand against this? > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 7 08:21:49 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:21:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> I believe this is a bit misleading... It is not Verisign, but Microsoft, who are trying to lock computer hardware to their OS. Microsoft is trying to persuade the vendors, that they must modify the PCs boot loader to allow only an OS that has boot loader signed by Microsoft to load, and that boot loader will presumably load Windows 8 only. This has been the reason of much debate recently and so far it seems the current requirement of Microsoft is for vendors to lock-in only non-desktop computers, such as tablets. If the vendor wants Windows 8 on their tablet, it must not be able to load another OS. For the desktop, because of existing Windows versions that apparently do not support this "secure boot" technology, this restriction is optional. You will be able to switch it on or off in the BIOS. Yes, this would mean computers with Windows will not be sold in embargoed countries, but I wonder how Windows gets there today... None of this will impact Linux or other OS running on "PCs". And it is not really anything to involve Verisign with. If someone has to be blamed for this development, that is Microsoft. They will of course claim it is for your own protection :) Daniel On 07.06.12 09:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign > has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. > > Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide > what operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are > certified for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any > operating system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued > certificate. Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and > device manufacturers will recognise by default are Microsoft's. > > This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of > Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital > signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux > - otherwise they simply won't run at all. > > If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical > implications of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not > permit anyone from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating > system (or even to distribute a version of Linux that they compile > from source) for users of Windows 8 certified computers. > > Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against > Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or > Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using > older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating > system, because home-grown operating systems won't run. > > Will the IGC take a stand against this? > > -- > > *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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jun 7 08:41:17 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:41:17 -0300 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4FD0A16D.8010506@cafonso.ca> Yes, this is precisely the point, Daniel. And there is no "logical" reason (in the logic of the IP industry) for M$ not requiring this to be extended to any new box able to run Win8, whatever its size or purpose. --c.a. On 06/07/2012 09:21 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > I believe this is a bit misleading... > > It is not Verisign, but Microsoft, who are trying to lock computer > hardware to their OS. Microsoft is trying to persuade the vendors, that > they must modify the PCs boot loader to allow only an OS that has boot > loader signed by Microsoft to load, and that boot loader will presumably > load Windows 8 only. > > This has been the reason of much debate recently and so far it seems the > current requirement of Microsoft is for vendors to lock-in only > non-desktop computers, such as tablets. If the vendor wants Windows 8 on > their tablet, it must not be able to load another OS. For the desktop, > because of existing Windows versions that apparently do not support this > "secure boot" technology, this restriction is optional. You will be able > to switch it on or off in the BIOS. > > Yes, this would mean computers with Windows will not be sold in > embargoed countries, but I wonder how Windows gets there today... > > None of this will impact Linux or other OS running on "PCs". And it is > not really anything to involve Verisign with. > > If someone has to be blamed for this development, that is Microsoft. > They will of course claim it is for your own protection :) > > Daniel > > On 07.06.12 09:32, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign >> has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. >> >> Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide >> what operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are >> certified for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any >> operating system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued >> certificate. Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and >> device manufacturers will recognise by default are Microsoft's. >> >> This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of >> Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital >> signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux >> - otherwise they simply won't run at all. >> >> If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical >> implications of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not >> permit anyone from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating >> system (or even to distribute a version of Linux that they compile >> from source) for users of Windows 8 certified computers. >> >> Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against >> Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or >> Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using >> older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating >> system, because home-grown operating systems won't run. >> >> Will the IGC take a stand against this? >> >> -- >> >> *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 Thu Jun 7 08:47:40 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 20:47:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <7B991441-A5B7-4F38-A365-AE8E2DD82574@ciroap.org> On 07/06/2012, at 8:21 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > I believe this is a bit misleading... > > It is not Verisign, but Microsoft, who are trying to lock computer hardware to their OS. But the money goes to Verisign, and they are Verisign certificates (issued underneath Microsoft's root). (Though as I have almost equal contempt for Verisign and Microsoft, I don't mind blaming either of them.) The reason why it is Verisign rather than any other CA is just because that's the one that Microsoft requires you to use to participate in this programme. > For the desktop, because of existing Windows versions that apparently do not support this "secure boot" technology, this restriction is optional. You will be able to switch it on or off in the BIOS. But, of course, only technical users will do that. It's just enough of a stumbling block to prevent ordinary computer users like your mum from trying any other operating system than Windows. > None of this will impact Linux or other OS running on "PCs". And it is not really anything to involve Verisign with. So I disagree with your conclusion. -- 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jun 7 09:17:39 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:17:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The "feature" is called SecureBoot. SecureBoot is part of the UEFI standards. Any OS can take advantage of it or not. It is up to the manufacturer how they implement it. Both Dell and HP have said they will have a BIOS setting to turn it on/off. AMI has indicated they will recommend this to OEMs using the AMI BIOS. PC's shipped with Windows 8 will default to on. If you want to install Linux you will have to turn it off. The reason for it existing is to prevent root kits. It appears that with Windows 8 tablets you may not be able to disable this. That is unfortunate but it is the norm for tablets where you usually have to install new firmware to install a different OS. I don't know what the fuss is. There is a lot of FUD about this. http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/UPFS11_P2_SecureBoot_Insyde.pdf Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: June-06-12 11:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide what operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are certified for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any operating system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued certificate. Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and device manufacturers will recognise by default are Microsoft's. This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux - otherwise they simply won't run at all. If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical implications of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not permit anyone from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating system (or even to distribute a version of Linux that they compile from source) for users of Windows 8 certified computers. Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating system, because home-grown operating systems won't run. Will the IGC take a stand against this? -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 09:17:37 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:17:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <7B991441-A5B7-4F38-A365-AE8E2DD82574@ciroap.org> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD09CDD.1000609@digsys.bg> <7B991441-A5B7-4F38-A365-AE8E2DD82574@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I suppose that in the way that the world looks at these things I'm "your mum". I had a disaster a couple of months ago - my dog jumped onto my desk and pee-ed on my laptop. So I had to buy a new laptop. Which came with two trial versions pre-installed - Norton anti-virus which told me 30 days and gave me frequent reminders of when it would expire And Office 10 - which didn't - it simply said it was a trial version. I had a serious backlog of work to deal with so foolishly just used the Office "because it was there". Every time I opened the program it reminded me that it was a trial version only. Until the middle of a Sunday afternoon, while I was working on an urgent reference letter for someone, when the program suddenly went dead in my hands. While I was still hitting the ceiling I wrote to Microsoft, and, among other things :-), asked for help to retrieve my intellectual property on my computer which was apparently locked by their software. After I calmed down I downloaded Open Office and the world steadied again. The next day my reply from Microsoft was instructions for buying their software - no other help. Perhaps the message is - remember Confucius - if you're going to be raped just lie back and enjoy it! Deirdre On 7 June 2012 08:47, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 07/06/2012, at 8:21 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > I believe this is a bit misleading... > > It is not Verisign, but Microsoft, who are trying to lock computer > hardware to their OS. > > > But the money goes to Verisign, and they are Verisign certificates (issued > underneath Microsoft's root). (Though as I have almost equal contempt for > Verisign and Microsoft, I don't mind blaming either of them.) The reason > why it is Verisign rather than any other CA is just because that's the one > that Microsoft requires you to use to participate in this programme. > > For the desktop, because of existing Windows versions that apparently do > not support this "secure boot" technology, this restriction is optional. > You will be able to switch it on or off in the BIOS. > > > But, of course, only technical users will do that. It's just enough of a > stumbling block to prevent ordinary computer users like your mum from > trying any other operating system than Windows. > > None of this will impact Linux or other OS running on "PCs". And it is not > really anything to involve Verisign with. > > > So I disagree with your conclusion. > > -- > > *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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 7 10:02:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:32:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> On Thursday 07 June 2012 06:47 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > The "feature" is called SecureBoot. SecureBoot is part of the UEFI > standards. Any OS can take advantage of it or not. It is up to the > manufacturer how they implement it. Both Dell and HP have said they > will have a BIOS setting to turn it on/off. AMI has indicated they > will recommend this to OEMs using the AMI BIOS. PC's shipped with > Windows 8 will default to on. If you want to install Linux you will > have to turn it off. The reason for it existing is to prevent root > kits. It appears that with Windows 8 tablets you may not be able to > disable this. That is unfortunate but it is the norm for tablets where > you usually have to install new firmware to install a different OS. > > I don't know what the fuss is. > The fuss is about the incremental but unmistakable manner in which the digital space/ opportunity is getting centralised, and tied to the control of a few global monopolies. This goes against the early egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of the digital space/ opportunity. One can always argue that separately any of the individual steps in this direction is not by itself of such monumental significance, as you try to do, but their collective impact on our digital ecology is what should concern us all, that is we are indeed inclined to be so concerned. It is the separation of software from the hardware which is credited with starting the IT revolution. Shouldnt a process of reversal of such separation concern us. parminder > There is a lot of FUD about this. > > http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/UPFS11_P2_SecureBoot_Insyde.pdf > > Kerry Brown > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy > Malcolm > *Sent:* June-06-12 11:32 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you > can run on your computer > > There's been much disquiet on this list about the power that Verisign > has to delete domains from the Internet at the whim of US authorities. > > Potentially even more frightening, they will soon be able to decide > what operating system you may run on your computer. PCs that are > certified for use with Windows 8 will, by default, refuse to run any > operating system that is not digitally signed by a Verisign-issued > certificate. Even worse, the only certificates that hardware and > device manufacturers will recognise by default are Microsoft's. > > This leads to the absurd situation that even commercial vendors of > Linux, such as Red Hat, will be paying Verisign to attach a digital > signature from Microsoft's key-signing root to their versions of Linux > - otherwise they simply won't run at all. > > If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider the geopolitical > implications of this. By virtue of US sanctions, Verisign will not > permit anyone from Cuba, Iran, Syria etc. to develop an operating > system (or even to distribute a version of Linux that they compile > from source) for users of Windows 8 certified computers. > > Why should it stop there? A US court order might be obtained against > Verisign to prevent it from certifying China's Red Flag Linux, or > Russia's ALT Linux. Billions of consumers could be forced into using > older or second-rate computers, or buying Microsoft's operating > system, because home-grown operating systems won't run. > > Will the IGC take a stand against this? > > -- > > *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 daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 7 10:20:10 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:20:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4FD0B89A.20904@digsys.bg> On 07.06.12 16:17, Kerry Brown wrote: > I don’t know what the fuss is. There is a lot of FUD about this. There is FUD, but also there are some fundamental problems that are NOT addressed by this "secure boot" initiative. The most trivial example is with open source operating systems, such as FreeBSD. The typical way you build and install FreeBSD is from source. This includes compiling the boot loaders from source too. Now, how do you sign those boot loaders? You aren't supposed to have the FreeBSD's private keys on every system that builds the boot loaders. If you do, malware writers could use those keys to build malicious boot code, that will be happily executed by this "secure" UEFI. This is not unique to FreeBSD of course and means that any open source OS will be unable to use this "feature". No matter what the advertizing says. Things with Windows are already bad, since when Microsoft implemented code signing. By virtue of being signed "by Microsoft", Windows will let any software run, without noticing the user and will full privileges. This is the worst "security" anyone can even invent... What is more, this "security" is being exploited today by serious, as they say "government backed" malware such as the recent "Flame" case. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Jun 7 10:14:23 2012 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:14:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <201206071415.q57EEw3K014624@es.funredes.org> Parminder: >The fuss is about the incremental but unmistakable manner in which >the digital space/ opportunity is getting centralised, and tied to >the control of a few global monopolies. This goes against the early >egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of >the digital space/ opportunity. ... +1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 09:19:34 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:19:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Surfing for Details German Agency to Mine Facebook to Assess Creditworthiness Message-ID: <4FD0AA66.7060802@gmail.com> 06/07/2012 Surfing for Details German Agency to Mine Facebook to Assess Creditworthiness A A leading German credit agency wants to mine Facebook for information on people's creditworthiness. *A leading German credit agency plans to mine Facebook and other social networking sites in search of information that could have a bearing on a person's creditworthiness, according to media reports. But several leading politicians have criticized the plan.* Info Germany's largest credit agency plans to use information it gathers online, including from individual Facebook pages, in its analysis of an individual's creditworthiness. The credit agency, SCHUFA, plans to use Facebook to study a person's relationships in determining how that might affect their ability to pay their bills, the German broadcaster NDR reported Thursday, citing confidential internal documents. SCHUFA also plans to analyze information about people from other sites like the professional networks Xing and LinkedIn, Twitter, a personal search engine called Yasni, and Google Street View, NDR reported. The credit agency, according to NDR, plans to use "crawling techniques," like those used by Google, with the goal of "identifying and assessing the prospects and threats." A credit agency spokesman confirmed to SPIEGEL ONLINE that a project called "SCHUFALab at HPI" exists, and added that "everything is happening within the legal frameworks in Germany." SCHUFA has commissioned the privately-funded information technology college, Hasso Plattner Institute, at the University of Potsdam, to develop a proposal for the project. *'Plans Go Too Far'* News of the credit agency's plans drew quick condemnation from the German Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, of the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP). "It cannot be that Facebook friends and preferences lead to one, for example, not being able to get a cell phone contract," Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "SCHUFA and other credit agencies should disclose their full intentions of using Facebook data to check creditworthiness." She said that it is already controversial what data is used in determining someone's credit report and called for the process to be "finally fully transparent." Rainer Brüderle, FDP floor leader in German parliament, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that SCHUFA should refrain from carrying out its project. "SCHUFA's plans go too far," he said. "Social networks, like a circle of friends, are part of a person's private life, and should therefore not be tapped." There are approximately 20 million Facebook users in Germany, and SCHUFA has collected data on more than 66 million consumers. Until now, most of the information for the credit agency has come from partners like banks, insurances agencies, and businesses. The credit reports are used frequently when someone in Germany applies for loans, rents an apartment or completes a cell phone contract. According to NDR's report on the confidential documents, the online texts could be analyzed "to determine the current opinions of a person," and researchers could use Facebook, Xing or Twitter profile information to find the "addresses, and especially changed addresses" of other users. The news of SCHUFA's new plan also was criticized by Germany's active data protection community. "Should SCHUFA really utilize the information, it would be an entirely new dimension," Thilo Weichert, the data protection representative for the state of Schleswig-Holstein told NDR. /With reporting by Veit Medick and Severin Weiland/ /mbw -- with wires http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-credit-agency-plans-to-analyze-individual-facebook-pages-a-837539.html#ref=rss / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: i-button.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 470 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 08:44:52 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:44:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] "oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD09372.1070805@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2182104@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FD09372.1070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FD0A244.6080007@gmail.com> parminder in summary: legitimation of imperialism (ability to give law) and "othering" amazing how simplistic analysis can be, countries can be anti-imperialist abroad while being tyrannical abroad... i guess that citizens united case should give pause to faith in american political benevolence... but perhaps not! riaz On 2012/06/07 07:41 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 04 June 2012 10:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] Well, yes. You slap everyone in the face with a >> call to arms that implies we are all idiots, I reply in kind. Now >> that we’ve got each other’s attention, maybe we can have a rational >> dialogue. /* >> > > A very weak excuse, Milton, but I'll pass it, as long as we are, > hopefully, on the rational dialogue path. >> >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> Your submission says, there should be a US led international >> agreement on ICANN status and role. I dont understand by what does >> 'US led' mean. Pl explain. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] OK. US now controls the root and ICANN via the >> IANA contract. If we are to move beyond that, the US has to take the >> initiative; i.e., the US has to say, “we are willing and ready to >> consider a new model.” Remember, those were comments in a U.S. >> proceeding, urging the US to take that leadership. /* >> > > I have no problem with your statement as comments in a US proceeding, > and thus at that i time I did not critique it. But now, in response to > my email, you indicated the same documents and its recs as the > possible way to go in the 'international' (or transnational) > discussion that we started to have on this list, and thus the nature > of my responses to it. Now, if US led just means, US needs to agree > 'we are ready to consider a new model' , yes, that is obvious. > Although, it is important to note that civil society starts proposing > models and build moral and political pressure much before governments > show their readiness to act, and I can quote innumerable instances of > this..... We dont wait to first see the clear expression of readiness > before we make our concrete proposals and build moral/ political > pressure. Also, I was wondering if what you call as a US led > international agreement will be the kind of political fiction like > AoC, where US signs something with a private party and tries to sell > it as an international thing, or it will be the real thing, as real > agreements between affected parties are, with international legal > basis and force. With your above clarification, I now think it is the > latter kind that you mean, but you may clarify. > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> I can only understand international agreements under international >> systems, like the UN. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] And, even on this list, we can see how poorly it >> works when the UN or a UN agency like the ITU tries to take the >> initiative. It becomes a “takeover” proposal and it plays into the >> hands of US-based nationalists. And it seems surprisingly easy to get >> many others to jump on that bandwagon – see, e.g., Avri’s recent >> comments on the ITU. Ergo, “US-led” is required. /* >> > > OK, now I think you dont have in your mind what I would see as 'real' > international agreements . What exactly is it that you are suggesting. > Pl be clear. What exactly is the US-led thing you propose. As to how > UN thing does or does not work, you present a very one sided picture. > The world in general is not so anti UN as a very limited view of a > narrow set of very vocal players in the IG space may suggest. I can > show you many campaigns from across the world, very popular and well > supported ones, that keep calling for a greater UN role in areas like > trade, climate change, IP, health, human rights etc. > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> I see 'oversight' as largely meaning as backing and ensuring >> adherence to the relevant legal framework (arrived through the >> international treaty spoken of above) and maintaining accountability. I >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] I think Bill Drake answered this claim very >> effectively. That is not what “oversight” means in historical context >> or to most of the people using it. To most govts, oversight means >> imposing or injecting their “public policy” concerns onto Internet >> governance institutions, collectively or individually. So we are back >> to the “public policy” problem. /* >> > > I still think WGIG saw oversight, in itself, in a relatively narrow > manner, even if connected to broader global pubic policy (GPP) issues. > We also know that US gov/ US media uses the term oversight in its > narrow meaning. Now, we cant keep on insisting that this term has to > be accepted to mean as some the actors we may not agree with take it > to mean. These are only /some/ actors.... As for 'injecting public > policy concerns onto IG institutions', you do agree later in your > email that 'FoE and anti-trust' are public policy concerns and they, > you insist, /must/ be injected onto IG institutions. Milton, the > paradox is clear. I agree with you that the processes and procedures > of developing public policy and means of, to use your words, injecting > them onto IG institutions, cannot be ad hoc, and should be very very > clear, process and relevant law bound. However, you cant really be > serious in proposing that what you see as public policy is good and > anything else is bad. In essence, this is what you are saying . Lets > be rational :). > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> */Now we all know, or should know, that most govts still believe they >> should be setting public policy for the internet./* >> > > Huh. So you think that governments shouldn't be setting public policy > for the Internet! In that case, I must alert and warn you that there > is someone masquerading as you, Milton Mueller, very active in the > civil society advisory committee of OECD's CCICP which is one body > most active in enabling some, most powerful, governments in 'setting > public policy for the Internet'. You must intervene immediately and > stop him. and the concerned governments, from doing this most > diabolical work. > >> */(It’s in the Tunis Agenda) From years of experience, including >> especially form watching the GAC and an IGF workshop on that topic, I >> have come to understand what it means./* >> > > Milton, we are slipping here into straight-forward > anti-governmentalism, as anti-democraticism. With years of experience > with the Indian government (and I am sure yours would be same for the > UG gov) I have come to understand the pettinesses of politicians, > their proclivity to corruption etc etc..... however neither have I > stopped engaging, very actively, with the Indian democratic governance > system, nor have I the least doubt that if I were to be a part of the > writing a new Indian constitution, it would in many/most of its > essential features would be similar to what it is today. > >> */It means, “we want to alter any ICANN decision to go along with >> whatever concerns we as national governments have, whatever political >> winds are blowing us at the moment and whatever lobbyist made the >> greatest impression on us.” It does NOT mean “ensuring adherence to a >> fixed legal framework.” Ensuring adherence to a legal framework is >> more like what courts do, not the politicians and ministers/govt >> bureaucrats who would staff an “oversight agency.” /* >> > > Courts do it on the basis of laws made by politicians/ ministers/ gov > bureaucrats. As I have been discussing, it is possible to make a CIR > oversight body with the sole role of ensuring adherence to a legal > framework, and not allowing it to make ad hoc interferences at all. An > institutional design that can ensure this objective is possible and > lets work towards it with faith in global democracy and global > institutions. > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> In any case, in your 2009 proposal you seem to be quite confused >> between your hatred of 'public policy' from above and at the same >> time putting in clear terms that ICANN should be subject to FoE >> regulation, anti-trust law etc (through the international agreement). >> This is subjecting ICANN to top down public policy, isnt it. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] Yes and no. Yes, I agree that codifying FoE and >> antitrust is in effect a policy. No, because the “policy” embedded in >> FoE and antitrust rules is stable, well-defined and fixed, not >> subjected to new formulation and change based on passing political >> vicissitudes./* >> > > There are many other policy objectives that have long term stable > political consensus around then in modern political thought and > practice. You just have a narrow ideological position here, which I > cant share. But lets at least agree that it is just one ideological > position, and your above propositions do not stem from any neutral > rational logic. > >> */In other words, we don’t want a committee of governments that >> reviews every ICANN decision and says “how does this conform to or >> contribute to my current policy objectives?” Instead, we want a >> dispute-driven (i.e., bottom up), court-like review process that >> says, “someone has claimed that this particular action of ICANN >> violates freedom of expression rights. Is this claim correct or not?”/* >> > > Yes, but again, here is the Milton's version of appropriate public > policy, and not such that is derived by a due, to the extent possible, > democratic process..... However, As oft stated now, I do agree that > the oversight body should have such a narrow 'legality and policy > adherence assessing' role as you put it. > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> */And if you want to ask me why I believe it is legitimate to codify >> FoE and antitrust as the relevant policies, it is because I believe >> those are the correct policies – ones that will keep the internet and >> the people who use it thriving./* >> > > I understand that you believe these to be the 'only' relevant > policies. But arent you a bit of bulldozing things here. I believe > that some other policies are as basic - as, for instance, enshrined in > many UN human rights instruments. So you think those are not relevant > and correct policies for the Internet? Just to breach your narrow, > arbitrary, construction, well, let me just name one - privacy...... > >> */I imagine it would be hard to get Putin or the Iranian government >> to agree on those, which is why I am _not_ in principle committed to >> a pure intergovernmental process./* >> > > Do you know with what dread the rest of the world reads the > pronouncement of US's tea party notables.... this is one reason that I > cant be persuaded by your entreaties that we all just submit to the US > law. It is easy to denounce a system by pointing to the views of what > may look like its worst actors, it can be done for any system. You > know very well that one Russia and one Iran cannot make UN policy, can > they?? Therefore your above line of 'reasoning' doesnt hold. Do you > think the non US world is readier to be subject to a US led process > then you are for a pure intergov UN process. Note however, that my and > many other proposals on the table on oversight and broader GPP are > rather multistakeholder. And I said that we must discuss actual > elements of any MS proposals - for instance, do you see, say, a > Microsoft rep play the same role as the Brazilain gov rep, for all > kind of policy and oversight matters? > >> */I think the more-liberal Internet can and should create its own >> institutional framework and bypass the repressive and authoritarian >> regimes if and when it can./* >> > > And, by the same token, also bypass the unilateral regime of the US > with one of the the world's worst record of not playing along with > global rules and standard, and with a rabid IP stance and global > design that, if implemented, would distort the global economic > structure forever. Why does these points miss your censure, and you > not see the need for bypassing this particular regime, which the rest > of the world finds so oppressive. > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> Then you seek " an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN >> should operate", whereby you mean an body of US law. No we cant agree >> here US law is made and can be changed by US legislature, and that >> doesnt work for the rest of the world. The appropriate body has to be >> of international law. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] it would be fine for me, /* >> > > lets build on this agreement...... > >> */I used to believe the same thing, but then people who understand >> how international law really works convinced me that it doesn’t >> really afford individuals much protection. /* >> > > US law affords even much less protection to me, even if I were to > disregard my principled opposition to its global application. > >> */Show me some cases, e.g., where the international legal system >> really upheld an individual’s free expression rights in a timely and >> effective manner and I might change my views. /* >> > > We see international legal system increasingly in operation even in > criminal matter, like war crimes (a different matter that US doesnt > accept this legal system). Traditionally, UN has mostly given policy > frameworks that have informed national legal systems, and I know many > instances, for instance in case of human right, women's rights, that > these UN policy frameworks have had very far reaching impacts. I > havent studied legal systems that would have had to provide direct and > immediate redress - in matters like marine routes and the involved > international jurisdiction, global trade disputes, IP disputes etc.... > but I understand that they do work. In case of the Internet, the > pressing global nature of the problems is a new thing, and as far as > we are satisfied with policy development frameworks, implementation > vis a vis to redress etc is an issue of contextual institutional > design, and that is why, in the present case, we should discuss how > the international CIR oversight body be consituted etc. > >> *//* >> >> >> You correspondingly want any non US person or entity to use >> California law to seek redress, if required, from ICANN. Again doesnt >> work for me. >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] only with respect to membership and certain >> procedural rights. I agree that this aspect of the proposal is >> flawed. There could be better proposals, but I haven’t seen one. /* >> > > No, it is not only in these matters that you mention that your > proposed system is flawed. It is undemocratic, subject to US policy > and law making processes, in which I have less faith than you perhaps > have in UN processes. Milton, I know you have a strong native > political instinct and strong political views. Answer this honestly ' > if you were not a US citizen, would you have accepted this > arrangement'. I am sure you would not have. So, pl be rational here :). >> >> *//* >> >> >> I must mention that it is strange that you, and the US, would want >> people and other entities of the rest of the world to resort to US >> national law to seek remedies vis a vis management of a global >> resource at a time when US is going around promoting FTAs that seek >> to subvert relevant domestic laws of the countries that it does FTA >> with in favour of international arbitration. Why being so stingy >> about sticking to national law and redress systems in this case. Why >> cant we have an international redress system. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] If you are talking about ICANN, I think most of >> the redress would be internal to ICANN’s processes, and thus would be >> fully international./* >> > > What policy/ legal basis is this redress based on. I remember a NCUC > statement that ICANN should never take a political/ policy view of > things, and limited by its mandate, only take technical/ financial > view. Do I remember wrong. So, on what basis would the redress be > provided if it involves a policy/ legal issue, even if FoE and > anti-trust based. > >> */E.g., the policy making bodies are governed by ICANN bylaws; the >> Independent Review Process was an arbitration that was not conducted >> under California Corp. law but under ICANN’s own defined procedures. >> I am just talking about falling back to Cal. law for some basic forms >> of accountability regarding procedure and membership. /* >> > > We keep coming back to the same point. US law is not acceptable. > Milton, you reject UN systems because you suspect that a few > authoritarian states will make the wrong kind of policies. You want us > to remain assured that US gov will never make wrong kind of policies. > Do you think this works for us, non US citizens. You seem to favour > the US system because of your preference for long term stable policy/ > legal systems. However, if we were to approach it rationally, I think > the US policy/ law making system is much more volatile that UN based > one. Dont you think so. With the kind of laws that we have seen > recently passed in the US, or on being on the brink of being passed, > do you think it gives the world confidence in the US policy/ legal > system. On the other hand, so laborious and consensus oriented are UN > processes, with US and its allies having such a position of enviable > strength in them ( a fact we seem to very easily ignored) that nothing > other than such policy positions that have long term relatively stable > political consensus in modern, but evolving, political though and > practice, can get past these processes. > > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> */The FTA argument is a red herring, has nothing to do with me or my >> position or what we are talking about here. /* >> > > No, it isnt. The international arbitration processes that are being > insisted upon in FTAs provide an example of increasing use of > international redress mechanisms, an issue you again raised above. It > is a different matter that I do not agree with the business-directed > processes that actually get employed in case of FTAs. No reason > however we cant have public interest oreinted interntional redress > processes based on sound international law. > > parminder > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> >> */Your turn./* >> > > > >> *//* >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jun 7 10:24:09 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:24:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I fail to see how you believe a feature that is easily turned off endangers "the early egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of the digital space/ opportunity". Some form of authenticating the OS before loading it is inevitable in this era of malware. All OS' will have to implement this or they will not be secure. Apple is implementing this as well. Linux or any OS can also implement this. Most manufacturers have said it will be easily turned off. I'm not apologising for Microsoft. I run a mix of Open Source, Microsoft, and Apple OS' on my computers and servers. I see some form of checking the OS before loading it as a welcomed security feature. I look forward to the open source community using this technology as well. The only issue I see is the use of certificates for this purpose. The public CA system is increasingly insecure. Kerry Brown From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: June-07-12 7:03 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kerry Brown Subject: Re: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer On Thursday 07 June 2012 06:47 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I don't know what the fuss is. The fuss is about the incremental but unmistakable manner in which the digital space/ opportunity is getting centralised, and tied to the control of a few global monopolies. This goes against the early egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of the digital space/ opportunity. One can always argue that separately any of the individual steps in this direction is not by itself of such monumental significance, as you try to do, but their collective impact on our digital ecology is what should concern us all, that is we are indeed inclined to be so concerned. It is the separation of software from the hardware which is credited with starting the IT revolution. Shouldnt a process of reversal of such separation concern us. 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 7 10:42:13 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:42:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > You only have to recall the recent controversy about what "Enhanced > Cooperation" means, to realise that the words are quite important, and > need to send a clear message to people ten years+ in the future about > what it was they intended to say. I draw the opposite conclusion; the verbal formulations in the Tunis Agenda, like the ITRs, actually have very little control over what really happens. The words you get in things like the ITRs and TA are the words that a bunch of politicians and government staff can agree on at the time, which may or may not be meaningful and effective. 7 years after we all agreed to engage in "enhanced cooperation" we have no consensus on what the term means, or whether it is happening or not, and no enforceable institutional mechanism for ensuring that it happens. Putting an agreement to do "EC" in the Tunis Agenda had very little impact on the long-term trajectory of Internet governance. And, frankly, it never will. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 11:14:32 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:14:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:42:13 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >7 years after we all agreed to engage in "enhanced cooperation" we >have no consensus on what the term means, or whether it is happening or not, And what's your view on UN-DESA's EC report put in front of CSTD a couple of years ago, full of feedback from various organisations on how they are getting on with it? None of them seemed to be in much doubt what it meant, or whether it was happening. >I draw the opposite conclusion; the verbal formulations in the Tunis >Agenda, like the ITRs, actually have very little control over what >really happens. In the ITU world they rely *very* heavily on previously agreed wording to advance whatever agenda/programme they are currently discussing. The trail today often leads back a decade, when it comes to "you asked to do this, and here we are, still trying to do it". eg I refer you to Resolution 146 from WTPF 2009 (Review of the ITRs) which invokes Antalya 2006, Marrakesh 2002 and Melbourne 1988. [Posted more for atmosphere than content]. -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 7 11:41:08 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:41:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 07/06/2012, at 10:24 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I fail to see how you believe a feature that is easily turned off endangers “the early egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of the digital space/ opportunity”. Because to use LInux, users have to either: 1. Use a distribution that has been signed (for a fee) by Verisign on behalf of Microsoft, two US IT companies with dominant market power, who may withdraw this "service" at any time (we already know that Verisign's fee will be rising 500% after its "limited time" offer expires). Not only that, but all drivers for the system must also be signed, and some operating system features will be disabled! 2. Go into their machine's boot loader settings to turn off a setting that is labelled as a security feature - which to the ordinary non-techy user is something like being instructed to disconnect the brake cable of your car. It's relatively difficult, and a scary thing to be asked to do. Moreover, a user can't even be given simple instructions on how to do it as the procedure will vary from one computer to another. So yeah, I think it's a big deal and I support Parminder's characterisation of 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 Jun 7 11:45:05 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:45:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184CE9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > And what's your view on UN-DESA's EC report put in front of CSTD a > couple of years ago, full of feedback from various organisations on how > they are getting on with it? None of them seemed to be in much doubt > what it meant, or whether it was happening. First, I have too much respect for the value of my time to read those documents. But having seen and heard the ideas of various players, I am sure that the organizations' submissions followed very predictable patterns. Those who support the IG status quo provided examples of how EC is going swimmingly (I hoisted a beer with Toure in Angola!) those who don't, provided evidence of how the IGF in their opinion has failed to advance it. > In the ITU world they rely *very* heavily on previously agreed wording > to advance whatever agenda/programme they are currently discussing. The > trail today often leads back a decade, when it comes to "you asked to do > this, and here we are, still trying to do it". True, but in a trivial sense. So yes, if you pass a resolution that says "UN agencies will follow up on WSIS-related activities every 5 years, then UN agencies will do that. But that will have no effect on how the Internet runs and works, and that is what I was talking about. --MM -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 11:49:24 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:49:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Let me give you a more specific example. A proposed change in the ITRs says, 8A.4 "Member States shall take measures to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, while protecting and respecting the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Now if that passes, do you think the presence or absence of that provision in a treaty will have any impact whatsoever on the stability, security of the Internet, the level of spam, or the privacy and foe rights of Internet users? Do you think that the complex trade-offs between freedom of expression, privacy, and fighting cybercrime that have to be operationalized in the real world by ISPs, users and states are affected in any significant way by that? I don't. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:15 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date > > In message > <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30 at SUEX10-mbx- > 10.ad.syr.edu>, at > 14:42:13 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes > >7 years after we all agreed to engage in "enhanced cooperation" we > >have no consensus on what the term means, or whether it is happening or > not, > > And what's your view on UN-DESA's EC report put in front of CSTD a > couple of years ago, full of feedback from various organisations on how > they are getting on with it? None of them seemed to be in much doubt > what it meant, or whether it was happening. > > >I draw the opposite conclusion; the verbal formulations in the Tunis > >Agenda, like the ITRs, actually have very little control over what > >really happens. > > In the ITU world they rely *very* heavily on previously agreed wording > to advance whatever agenda/programme they are currently discussing. The > trail today often leads back a decade, when it comes to "you asked to do > this, and here we are, still trying to do it". > > eg I refer you to Resolution 146 from WTPF 2009 (Review of the ITRs) > which invokes Antalya 2006, Marrakesh 2002 and Melbourne 1988. > > ITRs > _PP06.html> > > [Posted more for atmosphere than content]. > -- > 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 TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Thu Jun 7 12:37:59 2012 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:37:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Possible model [was: rational dialogue on the oversight topic] In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218213A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I'm coming into this discussion late because I'm (still) on vacation. A couple of years ago, I looked into this question of what might be the constraints if an international body were to be set up for "oversight" of the Internet. The paper was presented at the 2010 symposium of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network in Vilnius. The paper is clickable from http://giga-net.org/page/2010-annual-symposium Peng Hwa Ang and Natalie Pang, Going Beyond Talk: Can International Internet Governance Work? - ANG and PANG.pdf. To sum up: there are 3 factors to be considered in such a situation—globalization, sovereignty (of governments) and democracy (where accountability comes into the picture). The model is drawn from Dani Rodrik's trilemma of global integration. My colleague and I concluded that governments will not surrender their sovereignty easily; citizens will not surrender democracy easily. So it's globalization that has to give. We call it "thin globalization." This means that conceptually speaking, any international body will not be a truly global entity. It will likely have to be anchored in some national jurisdiction. (The model discussed would be an example of thin globalization.) My colleague and I then ask: ok, assuming that we have thin globalization, how realistic would it be that this body can function? That is, what is needed for this body to function as oppose to malfunction? Drawing from the theory of collective action by Mancur Olsen, we concluded that there needs to be a critical mass of support. This critical mass refers more to the quality of support (think heavyweights) as opposed to quantity of support. We also said that the USA must remain involved. Hope this sheds some light. Regards, Peng Hwa ANG [cid:5DB1759F-2911-4B4A-B296-F68823552048]ANG Peng Hwa (Professor) | Director, Singapore Internet Research Centre | Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information | Nanyang Technological University | WKWSCI 02-17, 31 Nanyang Link, Singapore 639798 Tel: (65) 67906109 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6792-7526 | Web: www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 539B7898-465C-4BEC-93E5-EDF160DCB62A.png Type: image/png Size: 11944 bytes Desc: 539B7898-465C-4BEC-93E5-EDF160DCB62A.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 12:46:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:46:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184CE9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184CE9@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184CE9 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 15:45:05 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes > > >> -----Original Message----- >> And what's your view on UN-DESA's EC report put in front of CSTD a >> couple of years ago, full of feedback from various organisations on how >> they are getting on with it? None of them seemed to be in much doubt >> what it meant, or whether it was happening. > >First, I have too much respect for the value of my time to read those >documents. It's only one document (although it has several appendices from the various players). I find it difficult to understand how it's possible to discuss EC without having read it, it's that much of an important milestone. Far from struggling to find 10 minutes to read it, I went all the way to Geneva to hear the CSTD discuss it... > But having seen and heard the ideas of various players, I am sure that >the organizations' submissions followed very predictable patterns. >Those who support the IG status quo provided examples of how EC is >going swimmingly (I hoisted a beer with Toure in Angola!) those who >don't, provided evidence of how the IGF in their opinion has failed to >advance it. Less than half the contributors mentioned the IGF, and all who did were positive about it. >> In the ITU world they rely *very* heavily on previously agreed wording >> to advance whatever agenda/programme they are currently discussing. The >> trail today often leads back a decade, when it comes to "you asked to do >> this, and here we are, still trying to do it". > >True, but in a trivial sense. So yes, if you pass a resolution that >says "UN agencies will follow up on WSIS-related activities every 5 >years, then UN agencies will do that. But that will have no effect on >how the Internet runs and works, and that is what I was talking about. They are much more specific than that. Things like "we need to have a reserved supply of IPv6 available to hand out when it becomes exhausted, just like IPv4 did". It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the proposition[1], it (and others like that) get hold and slowly but surely gather momentum. [1] Some people even say "give them some spare IPv6 to shut them up, we are sure it won't ever be needed, and in the mean time they'll stop banging on about it". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 7 12:49:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:49:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 15:49:24 on Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >Let me give you a more specific example. > >A proposed change in the ITRs says, > >8A.4 "Member States shall take measures to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, while protecting >and respecting the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human >Rights." > >Now if that passes, do you think the presence or absence of that provision in a treaty will have any impact whatsoever on the stability, >security of the Internet, the level of spam, or the privacy and foe rights of Internet users? Do you think that the complex trade-offs between >freedom of expression, privacy, and fighting cybercrime that have to be operationalized in the real world by ISPs, users and states are >affected in any significant way by that? I do, because one the main planks of the ITU's ambition is to be tasked with sorting out Cybercrime, and that will at the very least mean an ITU-inspired clone of the Budapest Convention (as a proposal for adoption by non-Budapest nations). That might well affect the rights of Internet users in those counties, if it doesn't come with the safeguards enshrined in ratifying Budapest (briefly: that you also have to match the ECHR as well). As for Spam, I think their solution might be universal end-to-end authenticated email, and that's a whole can of worms. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 7 13:00:34 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:30:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> David, I must again thank you for all the authoritative details which have been very illuminating, even if we seem to slip into disagreements when expressing opinions about how actors may behave in different situations etc. I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. According to you the system is too well distributed for this to happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Can you please specifically answer this question. While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek. In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious thing. One should realise that an international law/ treaty based organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be absolutely assured of this.... So creating this spectre of a China along with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all good. On Thursday 07 June 2012 12:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: > We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: > > On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: > >> I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand >> experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely >> event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA >> signed off on this change, the TCRs >> from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, >> recreate the keys that are used to sign the >> key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of >> readability), resign the new zone and then send >> it to Verisign for publication. >> > As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the Internet. > > If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral action. > > The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of keeping the USG from going rogue. > > >> In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have >> to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. >> > Exactly. > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 7 13:07:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:37:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FD0DFC7.6020801@itforchange.net> sorry, the email left my laptop before I could sign off, and so, with regards, parminder On Thursday 07 June 2012 10:30 PM, parminder wrote: > David, > > I must again thank you for all the authoritative details which have > been very illuminating, even if we seem to slip into disagreements > when expressing opinions about how actors may behave in different > situations etc. > > I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech > community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to > the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs > and the associated phenomenon. According to you the system is too well > distributed for this to happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my > present argument that this is indeed true. If so, why would you and > others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov > has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the > distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international > agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its > allies agreeing to any change. Can you please specifically answer > this question. While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do > anything bad to the Internet, as you claim at present US government > cannot do, such an arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US > world, and then we can have a smooth cordial sail for ever, and much > of the acrimony which so regularly arises on this count will be gone. > Is it not a worthy goal to seek. > > In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in > the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted > to an international body backed by inviolable international law > becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. > Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. > > And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive > power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes > than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based > and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear > fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright > disrespectful of equality of people, groups and countries, which is a > very very serious thing. One should realise that an international law/ > treaty based organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to > the law, and the law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or > at least of a very big majority, and certainly certainly not without > the consent of US, EU etc. Be absolutely assured of this.... So > creating this spectre of a China along with an Iran suddenly starting > to dictate how the Internet will be run is such a big a lie and > deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to people's > intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be very > watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what > happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do > us all good. > > > > > > On Thursday 07 June 2012 12:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: >> >> On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand >>> experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely >>> event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA >>> signed off on this change, the TCRs >>> from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, >>> recreate the keys that are used to sign the >>> key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of >>> readability), resign the new zone and then send >>> it to Verisign for publication. >>> >> As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the Internet. >> >> If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral action. >> >> The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of keeping the USG from going rogue. >> >> >>> In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have >>> to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. >>> >> Exactly. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 7 15:01:36 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:01:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making some progress on this thread. On the one hand, there is the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' description of what is working now from David and McTim...and noting the key safety feature in the global inter-net, that neither the USG, nor ICANN, nor anyone really, is in a position to tell -most- of the root zone operators what to do. They are already working for you, and for - global civil society. Always have, and hopefully always will. Hence David's bemusement at the techie's being accused of things when they have been defending all of us - from any arbitray government action, or private action, emanating from anywhere. No time to go into Jon Postel's power play/innocent test exercise demonstrating this point to USG back in the day, but anyway. Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UN process. And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament scenario, however one wishes to characterize it: WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table to talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that USG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something to talk about. Until then, we are all just - bluffing - and the US/DOC/NTIA know this, and won't engage since - there's nothing to talk about, given a process that is working, and no credible alternative on the table. Lee PS: I quote David again: With the exception of Verisign, none of the root server operators are under any sort of legal obligation to do anything, much less provide root service for data they know to be bad. Instead of serving bad data, I am certain that at least 3 and more likely at least 8 (all of the non-USG and Verisign) root servers would simply decide volunteering to provide that service is no longer in their best interests. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" David, I must again thank you for all the authoritative details which have been very illuminating, even if we seem to slip into disagreements when expressing opinions about how actors may behave in different situations etc. I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. According to you the system is too well distributed for this to happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Can you please specifically answer this question. While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek. In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious thing. One should realise that an international law/ treaty based organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be absolutely assured of this.... So creating this spectre of a China along with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all good. On Thursday 07 June 2012 12:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA signed off on this change, the TCRs from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, recreate the keys that are used to sign the key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of readability), resign the new zone and then send it to Verisign for publication. As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the Internet. If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral action. The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of keeping the USG from going rogue. In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. Exactly. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jun 7 15:20:23 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 19:20:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see that changing a setting in the BIOS is a big deal. If Microsoft was telling OEMs to not implement a way to turn off SecureBoot I'd be right there with you complaining. FWIW Apple is also implementing this and there is no way to turn it off AFAIK. New Apples will only be able to boot Mac OS or Windows 8 because of this. Kerry Brown From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: June-07-12 8:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kerry Brown Subject: Re: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer On 07/06/2012, at 10:24 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I fail to see how you believe a feature that is easily turned off endangers "the early egalitarian promise of a decentralised and bottom up architecture of the digital space/ opportunity". Because to use LInux, users have to either: 1. Use a distribution that has been signed (for a fee) by Verisign on behalf of Microsoft, two US IT companies with dominant market power, who may withdraw this "service" at any time (we already know that Verisign's fee will be rising 500% after its "limited time" offer expires). Not only that, but all drivers for the system must also be signed, and some operating system features will be disabled! 2. Go into their machine's boot loader settings to turn off a setting that is labelled as a security feature - which to the ordinary non-techy user is something like being instructed to disconnect the brake cable of your car. It's relatively difficult, and a scary thing to be asked to do. Moreover, a user can't even be given simple instructions on how to do it as the procedure will vary from one computer to another. So yeah, I think it's a big deal and I support Parminder's characterisation of 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 15:20:13 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:20:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making some > progress on this thread. > > On the one hand, there is the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' description > of what is working now from David and McTim I can't speak for David, but my position is MUCH more nuanced than that. What I have been saying for a very long time indeed is that tilting at this particular windmill is not a productive use of time. The USG is NOT going to let this go, no matter what, so let's work on things we CAN change. ..and noting the key safety > feature in the global inter-net, that neither the USG, nor ICANN, nor anyone > really, is in a position to tell -most- of the root zone operators what to > do. right > > They are already working for you, and for - global civil society. Always > have, and hopefully always will. right > > Hence David's bemusement at the techie's being accused of things when they > have been defending all of us - from any arbitray government action, or > private action, emanating from anywhere.  No time to go into Jon Postel's > power play/innocent test exercise demonstrating this point to USG back in > the day, but anyway. > > Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the > system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UN > process. > > And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament scenario, > however one wishes to characterize it: > > WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table to > talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that USG/DOC/NTIA > can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something to talk about. Even in the poker scenario, the USG can produce 5 aces to anyone else's 4 aces. This is unfortunate, but it is what it is. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jun 7 17:56:19 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:56:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Parminder and trust me, this dialogue will only illuminate one thing that everyone is helpless in front of USG so lets not talk about that and lets talk about everything other than that. -- Foo On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: > David, > > I must again thank you for all the authoritative details which have been > very illuminating, even if we seem to slip into disagreements when > expressing opinions about how actors may behave in different situations etc. > > I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community > are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's > architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated > phenomenon. According to you the system is too well distributed for this to > happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is > indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body > exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant > guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an > international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and > its allies agreeing to any change.  Can you please specifically answer this > question. While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad > to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an > arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a > smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly > arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek. > > In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the > hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an > international body backed by inviolable international law  becomes the > resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'.  Can you help me > understand this apparent paradox. > > And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power > is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than > international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US > actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, > well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of > equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious > thing. One should realise that an international law/ treaty based > organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the > law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big > majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be > absolutely assured of this.... So creating this spectre of a China along > with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is > such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to > people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be > very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what > happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all > good. > > > > > > On Thursday 07 June 2012 12:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: > > On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: > > > I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand > experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely > event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA > signed off on this change, the TCRs > from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, > recreate the keys that are used to sign the > key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of > readability), resign the new zone and then send > it to Verisign for publication. > > > As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal > course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make > sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then > submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed > documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign > edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to > the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the > Internet. > > If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would > bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their > database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root > servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. > The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral > action. > > The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of > the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made > unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the > DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) > the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to > Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of > keeping the USG from going rogue. > > > > In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have > to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. > > > Exactly. > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jun 7 18:01:29 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:01:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > From: Fouad Bajwa > Reply-To: , Fouad Bajwa > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 02:56:19 +0500 > To: , parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" > > +1 Parminder and trust me, this dialogue will only illuminate one > thing that everyone is helpless in front of USG so lets not talk about > that and lets talk about everything other than that. > > -- Foo But the emperor has no clothes.... > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:00 PM, parminder wrote: >> David, >> >> I must again thank you for all the authoritative details which have been >> very illuminating, even if we seem to slip into disagreements when >> expressing opinions about how actors may behave in different situations etc. >> >> I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community >> are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's >> architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated >> phenomenon. According to you the system is too well distributed for this to >> happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is >> indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body >> exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant >> guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an >> international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and >> its allies agreeing to any change.  Can you please specifically answer this >> question. While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad >> to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an >> arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a >> smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly >> arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek. >> >> In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the >> hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an >> international body backed by inviolable international law  becomes the >> resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'.  Can you help me >> understand this apparent paradox. >> >> And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power >> is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than >> international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US >> actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, >> well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of >> equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious >> thing. One should realise that an international law/ treaty based >> organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the >> law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big >> majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be >> absolutely assured of this.... So creating this spectre of a China along >> with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is >> such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to >> people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be >> very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what >> happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all >> good. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday 07 June 2012 12:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> We're mixing a couple of threads here. A clarification: >> >> On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:30 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> I think what drc is trying to tell you (from his vast firsthand >> experience) is that IF in the incredibly unlikely >> event that the IANA created a rootzone that excluded say .in AND NTIA >> signed off on this change, the TCRs >> from around the world would have to fly to a rootsigning ceremony, >> recreate the keys that are used to sign the >> key that signs the rootzone (a bit of a simplification for ease of >> readability), resign the new zone and then send >> it to Verisign for publication. >> >> >> As mentioned previously, IANA doesn't create the root zone. In the normal >> course of events, a TLD admin sends an update to IANA. ICANN personnel make >> sure the request comes from an appropriate entity and makes sense, then >> submits the change requests to NTIA. NTIA, after making sure ICANN followed >> documented policies and procedures, authorizes those changes. Verisign >> edits the zone, signs it with the Zone Signing Key, and distributes it to >> the root servers. The root server operators then publish the zone to the >> Internet. >> >> If the USG decided .IN should no longer exist in the root zone, they would >> bypass ICANN and would force Verisign to remove the .IN entry from their >> database, generate a new zone, sign it, and distribute it to the root >> servers. The root server operators would then have to publish the zone. >> The point being that even in the worst case, there can be no unilateral >> action. >> >> The TCRs would only be involved if the private keys stored in both sets of >> the DNSSEC hardware security modules were destroyed or otherwise made >> unusable. In such a case, the TCRs, acting together, can regenerate the >> DNSSEC Key Signing Key private key. That key is used to sign (make valid) >> the Zone Signing Key used by Verisign. TCRs were brought up in response to >> Norbert's idea of having multiple Key Signing Keys, not in the context of >> keeping the USG from going rogue. >> >> >> >> In that incredibly far-fetched scenario, all the root-ops would have >> to accept that new zone. I suggest that at least some would not. >> >> >> Exactly. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 7 18:24:30 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 22:24:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC6C5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> McTim, It may well be true as you note that: >Even in the poker scenario, the USG can produce 5 aces to anyone >else's 4 aces. >This is unfortunate, but it is what it is. To now take Parminder's view on this, we are not in the game, if we are not at the table, or cannot even recognize what the table looks like. Soo...from a global IG view, we now know who holds which cards. Which is progress of a sort. And personally, I am very happy that root zone operators, under no contractual or other legal obligation to anyone, have trump cards. As to what other cards or games to play going forward, that indeed - is the question. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:20 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making some > progress on this thread. > > On the one hand, there is the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' description > of what is working now from David and McTim I can't speak for David, but my position is MUCH more nuanced than that. What I have been saying for a very long time indeed is that tilting at this particular windmill is not a productive use of time. The USG is NOT going to let this go, no matter what, so let's work on things we CAN change. ..and noting the key safety > feature in the global inter-net, that neither the USG, nor ICANN, nor anyone > really, is in a position to tell -most- of the root zone operators what to > do. right > > They are already working for you, and for - global civil society. Always > have, and hopefully always will. right > > Hence David's bemusement at the techie's being accused of things when they > have been defending all of us - from any arbitray government action, or > private action, emanating from anywhere. No time to go into Jon Postel's > power play/innocent test exercise demonstrating this point to USG back in > the day, but anyway. > > Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the > system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UN > process. > > And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament scenario, > however one wishes to characterize it: > > WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table to > talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that USG/DOC/NTIA > can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something to talk about. Even in the poker scenario, the USG can produce 5 aces to anyone else's 4 aces. This is unfortunate, but it is what it is. -- 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 istaff.org Thu Jun 7 18:29:23 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 18:29:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9CA95A22-E62B-420B-9733-26B9C7BEE26C@istaff.org> On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:00 PM, parminder wrote: > > I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. I do not know know about others, but I have never said that, and would disagree with it. I believe the the USG, like all political entities, is indeed capable of "doing bad things" with respect to the Internet infrastructure, but that the particular organization in the USG, e.g. DoC/NTIA, has a very solid track record in not meddling despite potential ability to do so. > According to you the system is too well distributed for this to happen. Now, let me accept for the sake of my present argument that this is indeed true. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Can you please specifically answer this question. I am uncertain if that body and the infrastructure oversight it establishes will be any more stable than the present system, which has worked very well over the years, and has even shown less and less USG control. > While as you say, that UN body will not be able to do anything bad to the Internet, as you claim at present US government cannot do, such an arrangement will satisfy so many in the non US world, and then we can have a smooth cordial sail for ever, and much of the acrimony which so regularly arises on this count will be gone. Is it not a worthy goal to seek. A wonderful goal, and certainly one worth _evolving_ towards. > In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. I have yet to see any arrangement proposed by an international body in sufficient detail to judge it. I will note the care that went into DNS root and DNSSEC; do we really believe something of similar calibre would be created? > And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. Agreed that the potential exists, particularly with non-DoC US Departments in the that statement. I do not actually know if the overall probability is higher given some of the abuses that have occurred in international organizations. > The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, if not outright disrespectful of equality of people, groups and countries, which is a very very serious thing. Understandable, just as the tendency to view the USG only as a single entity (when the actual situation is much more complex) discounts the remarkable progress in impartial oversight that has been made to date. > One should realise that an international law/ treaty based organisation simply cannot but act in strict adherence to the law, and the law cannot be changed without the consent of all, or at least of a very big majority, and certainly certainly not without the consent of US, EU etc. Be absolutely assured of this.... Excuse me? Are you saying that all treaty organizations act purely within their constraints and abuses never occur? I can sent you some news articles if you like to read up in this area. > So creating this spectre of a China along with an Iran suddenly starting to dictate how the Internet will be run is such a big a lie and deliberate delusion, and it is also such an affront to people's intelligence. At the same time I am all for civil society to be very watchful of what happens at the UN or ITU etc as we are watchful what happens with the US gov or India gov. But a sense of balance will do us all good. Indeed , in that sense of balance we should remember that we don't have any abuses in oversight (as far as I can determine) to date, so we're talking about changing things to prevent abuses. I think it is important to carefully balance the present reality with the theoretical perfect international treaty mechanism and honestly consider the probabilities of abuse. Thanks, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Global organizations may have a much larger and distorted presence than reflections in mirror would otherwise indicate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 20:51:08 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:51:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote: > I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be that, like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the USG to do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more than sufficient to discourage such actions. > If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at APNIC back in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally asserting it had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet governance policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the governments of the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even discuss potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the OSI protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away). However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of the relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential alternatives (well, other than the ITU). Which UN body are you proposing? > In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a technical person rather than a political one), a couple of potential explanations I can think of: - a viable alternative has not been identified; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in Internet technologies; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively impact Internet operational efficiency; and/or - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have soured folks in that community on all international bodies. However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree with any/all of the above). > And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private meetings with government officials in which they told me that while publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those individuals have changed. More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a perception, particularly within at least part of the Internet technical community, that international bodies have in the past retarded innovation in the telecommunications sector in order to maintain the political/economic status quo, much to the detriment of human society as a whole. Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect unless/until concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen again, there will be resistance to change towards an international body. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 8 03:46:10 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:46:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Glorioso on Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:20:18 +0200) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120607053813.4FB72819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120608074610.423B1819F@quill.bollow.ch> Hi Andrea and all Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Thursday, June 7, 2012, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Indeed. Well the level of interest is at least high enough that not > > long ago, an official of the European Commission asked on this list > > (if I understood him right) about whether it would be possible to > > decentralize the root signing function across several countries. To > > that I replied that yes, it would be possible in principle, but it > > would require modification of DNSSEC. John pointed out that the > > required engineering work could be difficult in view of potential > > problems related to datagram size. > > I believe you are referring to me (I don't think there are so many other > officials of the European Commission writing on this list :) Yes I was, although there are two inaccuracies in how I referred to conversation partners in the above quoted paragraph. I would like to hereby apologize for those inaccuracies and correct them. The first inaccuracy is that as a matter of fact, what I replied to was not (as I somewhat confused in my recollection) directly the question that Andrea had asked, but rather the set of thoughts created in my mind by his words together with a point that John had made in response: Quoting John Curran's email of Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:38 -0700: :On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: :> On Monday, June 4, 2012, John Curran wrote: :> :> > Indeed, ICANN can remove entire top-level-domains (such as a ccTLD) :> > That is going to be the case for some entity no matter how you set up :> > Internet governance in this area. :> :> What if the authority to take such decision was shared among different :> entities? : :The implementation of such a decision will ultimately occur within a single :entity, which will exist within the territory of a nation state somewhere. The second inaccuracy is that the point about the engineering difficulty of the change to DNSSEC that I had proposed was in fact not in a posting of John, but in one of David Conrad, whose precise words were: : there are technical issues relating to the size of signatures that : make supporting multiple keys as you suggest quite challenging. : Revising DNSSEC to add this capability would likely be quite expensive : and I suspect the cost/benefit analysis would imply it would be : difficult to get the technical community to revise the specifications, : update implementations, and deploy the new code, particularly as all : that effort would need to be done to address a non-technical : consideration that most in the technical community would view (rightly : or wrongly) as political window dressing. Now continuing my response to Andrea's recent posting: > (As I wrote many times and as it is clearly indicated in the .signature of > my emails, when I write here, unless I specifically say otherwise, I am > expressing personal positions, not the positions of the EU Commission. This > is very important for everyone to clearly understand, otherwise my ability > to engage in conversations will be severely limited. But maybe this would > not be a problem :). In my opinion at least, it would be a very big loss. > On the specific point you mention, I referred to the possibility for > multiple countries to have a formal role in the process of modifying the > root zone. DNSSEC signing is an element of that but, for reasons > highlighted by others, not necessarily the most important one. Ok... I think that it is now getting clearer, in my mind at least, that there are three aspects that matter here: a) Trustworthiness of the overall process (including management decisions, zone signing, and acceptance --or potentially non-acceptance-- of the signed root zone by rootzone operators) from the perspective of rational analysis of someone who has enough understanding about cryptography and other aspects of security to be able to form an informed person's opinion about the trustworthiness of what is being done, and who also has enough interactions with technical community persons to be able to form an informed person's opinion about the overall trustworthiness of this technical community in regard to the robustness against conspiracy attempts. b) Trustworthiness of this overall process from the perspective of people who rely on second-hand information for evaluation of whether that cryptography stuff is some kind of true security or just theater, and on whether the technical community as a whole is truly more trustworthy than say dictatorship of a greedy profit-oriented company, or the government of a banana republic, etc. c) Political window dressing. I would strongly assert that political window dressing matters. (Would anyone want to buy from a shop where the window dressing is careless and incompetent?) But I believe that in order to be credible, political window dressing needs to be based on what can be trusted to be real, from both of the perspectives 'a' and 'b' above. I think that at least from a long term perspective, it would not at all be beneficial to have some kind of UN theater in which multiple countries participate in some ceremony related to approval of changes to the dns root zone while the HSMs (the hardware devices on which the actual cryptographic computations for generating the signatures are performed) remain under unilateral US control. I am strongly convinced of the desirability of geographically distributed rootzone signing, because that would, IMO at least, positively impact all three aspects. > Let me also point out that, whether the CS and technical "communities" find > it stupid or not, politics (national and international) are characterized > by a high degree of symbolism and theater play. That's not all there is to > it of course, but sometimes process modifications that a techie may > consider irrelevant can have a huge impact in appeasing public authorities. I would add that IMO this matters not only from the perspective of public authorities but also from the perspective of people as a whole. > I know this is not necessarily a priority for everyone, although in terms > of real-politik I would suggest it should. Good point. > > If the level of interest is as great as Parminder asserts, this > > information should indeed result in significant resources getting > > allocated to that engineering work. I personally will be surprised > > if this happens anytime soon (my impression is that the level of > > interest is more on a "nice to have" / "this is something that we > > rant about if the feature is not there, but we're not willing to > > pay for the cost of getting it" level) but we'll > > I am not clear whether you are suggesting that public authorities should > allocate resources here. Indeed I was not clear. The main thought was that I was realizing, in a fresh way, that there is a difference between what one likes to assert in a debate as important, and what one is willing to allocate significant resources to if the monetary cost turns out to be high. Logically, the point that I was trying to make, without having quite so clearly analyzed it yet, goes a bit like this: Parminder had asserted that there is a very significant level of interest, internationally, in greater internationalization of CIR management. I assert that this interest could potentially be of one of two kinds: Is it something governments are willing to expend significant resources on, or not? This matters specifically in regard to the DNSSEC change that I had suggested, because I believe that in view of its difficulty, it isn't going to happen unless someone is willing to pay for the engineering work to happen. I furthermore assert that when a reasonably rational government (I mean this in a sense in which most governments are reasonably rational, but e.g. Muammar al-Gaddafi's government wasn't) is informed about what is possible to do, you will then be able to see from the government's actions the distinction between the two kinds of interest. I furthermore (even in the absence of any official confirmation regarding this) assert my belief that sufficient information about the "distributed root zone signing" idea has successfully been communicated to the European Commission so that *if*, from the European Commission's perspective, enabling this technically is important enough that the benefit justifies the cost, it's going to happen. And finally I encourage others to try also to seek to communicate to governments about what is possible to do, by means of spending some money on engineering, to further reasonable policy objectives. Now to the question whether I am "suggesting that public authorities should allocate resources here." I didn't quite want to go so far as to suggest this specifically, because right now I'm not clear in my mind what changes I would really like to see happen to DNS, and it might not be good for a significant amount of tax money to be spent on making changes to DNS before it is clearer what kinds of changes are more or less desirable/undesirable from the various relevant technical perspectives. But generally I'd like to assert the following: 1) It will be very good for governments to send technically knowledgeable persons to participate in technical discussions and make sure that aspects which are important to the protection of fundamental human rights (among which are the right to privacy, the right to self determination of the peoples, etc.) don't get overlooked. I believe that public authorities should allocate resources on this. 2) It will be very good for everyone (not only governments but also civil society) to work constructively towards creating workable solutions to whatever issues one describes as problems with one's words. Such alignment between words and actions is very important. Trust cannot develop in the absence of such alignment. 3) While in many technical discussions the participation of one publicly funded public interest advocate with a governmental perspective may suffice, there are topics where this won't suffice. In particular, it won't be enough to have a single government-funded participant in discussions of problems where significant reengineering work is required, because a public interest perspective is asserted now which was overlooked at first. Changing course is difficult even when the reasons for doing so are important. 4) I would suggest that public authorities should be prepared to allocate resources to fixing results of technical discussion processes when those results are bad in the sense of inadequate protection of fundamental human rights. In the topic currently under discussion, the right of the peoples to self determination is IMO either violated or at the very least insufficiently protected, so in my view the allocation of tax money to addressing the problem would not be misplaced. 5) The specific direction of the technical work on which tax money would be spent should however not be discussed behind closed doors of ITU, nor behind closed doors of any other intransparent process without full opportunity to participate in the dicussions for everyone who is willing to participate constructively in the discussion. Rather, a new, appropriate vessel should be created which is suitable for international discussions about such topics. 6) This vessel, for which I've been suggesting the name "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force", should be designed so that it can be used e.g. for developing a "Request For Action" statement that outlines objectives for the design of DNSSEC improvements to enable internationalization of the root signing function. It should be possible to develop such a "Request For Action" statement there even if there is significant political opposition against internationalization of the root signing function. (Such opposition from those who feel that they might lose economic or political power in the case of such a change should be expected, and the discussion processes need to be designed for robustness so that constructive discussion and progress in the preparation of a "Request For Action" document cannot be effectively prevented by those who would like prevent or at least delay any change to the status quo.) Those who are in favor of the greatest possible caution with regard to any transfer of political authority regarding the root zone would at the same time also be welcome to develop a "Request For Action" statement on the basis of their concerns. I would expect a significant number of people to join both working groups and work towards making sure that both sets of concerns as well as the possible policy choices, with the associated risks and trade-offs, are well explained. 7) This will hopefully result in the creation of "Request For Action" documents that governments as well as opinion leaders among the general public will find informative and persuasive. 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 daniel at digsys.bg Fri Jun 8 05:41:21 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:41:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FD1C8C1.8070508@digsys.bg> On 07.06.12 22:20, Kerry Brown wrote: > > We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see that changing a setting > in the BIOS is a big deal. If Microsoft was telling OEMs to not > implement a way to turn off SecureBoot I’d be right there with you > complaining. FWIW Apple is also implementing this and there is no way > to turn it off AFAIK. New Apples will only be able to boot Mac OS or > Windows 8 because of this. > While I don't intend to defend Apple in any way... what you describe is: - speculation, because no such Apple computers exist; - not likely to happen, because an Apple computer user might want to install Windows 7 (which is better suited for desktop/laptop use) and that Windows version can't boot with "secure" boot loaders. The existence of successful previous versions of Windows is the sole reason why Microsoft is agreeing to make this optional on "desktop" computers. My opinion is that this idea will not fly for long. The percentage of Windows computers is decreasing and the new purchases are more in either the DIY category or computers not intended to run Windows. Those who manufacture hardware need to make some money, however strong their love for Microsoft is (or not). Yes, we will see a number of models with such UEFI loader, mostly on trade shows -- and life will continue as usual. The concept is just not good enough from technical and logistics perspective. It benefits nobody else but Microsoft. There is of course the unfortunate involvement in all this for Verisign. I wonder here however, because Verisign actually sold the certificates business to Symantec last year. Are they starting again? Not likely. So it will be really Symantec, to take all the bad press. But, if this is going to use certificates, someone has to root the chain of trust and it is likely all those industry parties agree that be someone "impartial". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 8 06:51:26 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:51:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Verisign to control what operating systems you can run on your computer In-Reply-To: <4FD1C8C1.8070508@digsys.bg> References: <4FD04AE9.8050808@ciroap.org> <4FD0B47B.7000203@itforchange.net> <4FD1C8C1.8070508@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <+zEGOQeukd0PFACR@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4FD1C8C1.8070508 at digsys.bg>, at 12:41:21 on Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >There is of course the unfortunate involvement in all this for >Verisign. I wonder here however, because Verisign actually sold the >certificates business to Symantec last year. Are they starting again? >Not likely. So it will be really Symantec, to take all the bad press "Verisign Authentication Services" are still "from Symantec" it seems. A bit like IBM laptops being 'from Lenovo'. (IBM has also sold its hard drive and printer businesses) -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jun 8 08:03:45 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:03:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?University_of_Toronto=92s_Canada_Ce?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ntre_and_Citizen_Lab_Announce_the_Cyber_Stewards_Program?= In-Reply-To: <883F7978-D547-4E38-BD92-735666096D64@utoronto.ca> References: <883F7978-D547-4E38-BD92-735666096D64@utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <9FE57F16-8369-46AF-B82A-ED8E1ADA6ED0@privaterra.org> Dear Internet Governance colleagues, Let me share with all of you the following announcement. I think some of you might find it of interest. regards Robert Guerra Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org --- University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto (with the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) are pleased to announce the launch of the Cyber Stewards program. The Cyber Stewards program is designed to address the urgent need to support South-based cyber security scholars, advocates, and practitioners to articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. Cyber Stewards will be selected from across the global South. They will work locally while networking globally through the auspices of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Cyber Stewards will define their own scope of work and activities based on their local context and pressing concerns. The expectation will be that Cyber Stewards will map, analyze, and ultimately impact the cyber security priorities of their own countries and regions on the basis of shared knowledge and practices. “We are excited about this opportunity, and the prospects that the Cyber Stewards network can accomplish,” says Ron Deibert, Director of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. “Working together, we envision the Cyber Stewards will help contribute to a growing global movement of citizens, scholars and practitioners - a community of practice - whose aim is to protect cyberspace as a secure but open commons of information in which human rights are respected.” Detailed Overview As cyberspace expands and deepens in the global South, there are growing concerns around how cyberspace will be governed and constituted. The security of cyberspace is now an urgent concern. A cyber arms race among governments and non-state actors has begun in earnest. Facing a growing number of threats, from cyber crime to espionage and warfare, governments are developing ambitious cyber security strategies, some of which include far-reaching and potentially ominous censorship, surveillance, and information operation components. Unless proper checks and balances are instituted locally, there will continue to be strong pressures to build “surveillance-by design” into newly built infrastructure -- particularly the newly emerging mobile and social media ecosystems. These troubling trends of information control and securitization portend the gradual disintegration of an open and secure commons of information on a global scale. It is essential that the process of cyber securitization taking place in the South includes local voices who can articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. The aim of the Cyber Stewards project is to help support and develop those local voices. Why “Steward”? Stewardship is typically defined as an ethic of responsible behaviour in a situation of shared resources, typically with respect to the natural environment and the commons, such as the oceans and outer space. Although cyberspace is more of a mixed pooled resource that cuts across public and private sector than a commons per se, the concept of stewardship still carries considerable merit: it implies behaviour that goes beyond self-interest to accomplish something in the service of a wider public good. It emphasizes the need for balance and the appreciation of the complexity of the system. It carries with it a connotation of custodianship and citizen-based monitoring, all of which mesh with the aims of the network we are setting out to build. Why should South-based scholars and practitioners link up with a North-based institution, like the University of Toronto? Moving forward, it is imperative that stewards of cyberspace include representation from all stakeholders in the global communications environment, and that bridges are built between communities across North, South, East and West. Although the challenges of each locality are unique, together we live in a shared communications space that is becoming increasingly dense and interconnected. We have a shared responsibility to sustain that space in a manner that supports everyone’s rights, while keeping it secure. Networking South-based Cyber Stewards with the University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab’s already existing network of collaborative partnerships will help accomplish that goal and hopefully build a broad community of global Cyber Stewards that empowers us all collectively. Who will make up the Cyber Stewards program and how will it operate? There will be a diversity in research topics and methods, as well as regional and disciplinary backgrounds, in the constitution of Cyber Stewards. We anticipate that the group will form a network of peers, in which the Cyber Stewards regularly interact with each other, engage in knowledge sharing and joint research and development, and mutual mentorship. Cyber Stewards will interact virtually as well as through occasional joint workshops and major conferences, facilitated by the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. Interested parties from any of the following regions should send a CV and a five page outline that details project ideas to cyberstewards at citizenlab.org (Central America, Caribbean, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, and Asia). About the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs is a centre of interdisciplinary research, policy development, and other activities in emerging security issues that are critical to Canada's future. Established in spring 2010 with a grant from the Government of Canada, the Canada Centre's areas of interdisciplinary study include cyber security, global health, food security, and region-specific concerns, such as the future of the Arctic, post-Soviet Europe, the new Asian powers, and the changing face of the Americas. About the Citizen Lab The Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Canada focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights. We are a “hothouse” that combines the disciplines of political science, sociology, law, computer science, engineering, and graphic design. Our mission is to undertake advanced research and engage in development that monitors, analyses, and impacts the exercise of political power in cyberspace. We undertake this mission through collaborative partnerships with leading edge research centers, organizations, and individuals around the world, and through a unique “mixed methods” approach that combines technical analysis with intensive field research, qualitative social science, and legal and policy analysis methods undertaken by subject matter experts. The Citizen Lab’s ongoing research network includes the OpenNet Initiative, OpenNet Eurasia, and Opennet.Asia as well as the Cyber Security Stewards network. The Citizen Lab was a founding partner of the Information Warfare Monitor (2002-2012). The Citizen Lab developed the original design of the Psiphon censorship circumvention software, which spun out of the lab into a private Canadian corporation (Psiphon Inc.) in 2008. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Jun 8 08:58:00 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:58:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] [NDS] The call for proposals of the EIDHR is open / actions aimed at fighting cyber-censorship and to promote Internet access and secure digital communications Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this e-mail multiple times / thanks for sharing this information widely ] Dear all, As announced at the FIRE/NDS workshop of 7 May 2012 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/events/evwsfirends_en.html) and at the EIDHR Forum of 7-8 May 2012 (http://www.eidhr.eu/events/eidhr-forum) the 2012 call for proposals of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) "Enhancing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms where they are most at risk and supporting Human Rights Defenders" has been opened. This EIDHR call for proposals includes a part specifically devoted to funding "actions aimed at fighting cyber-censorship and to promote Internet access and secure digital communications" (Lot 3, page 7 of the "Guidelines for Applicants"). The deadline for submitting "concept notes" is 20 July 2012, 12:00 Brussels time. You can find further information, as well as all supporting documentation, at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1339158131303&do=publi.detPUB&searchtype=AS&Pgm=7573843&aoet=36538&ccnt=7573876&debpub=&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&nbPubliList=15&page=1&aoref=132760. Please note that the European Commission does not provide technical support for the preparation of proposals. For further information, please refer to the list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) available at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?ADSSChck=1339158139709&do=publi.getDoc&documentId=122873&pubID=132760. Best regards, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 08:09:18 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:09:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <9CA95A22-E62B-420B-9733-26B9C7BEE26C@istaff.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <9CA95A22-E62B-420B-9733-26B9C7BEE26C@istaff.org> Message-ID: <4FD1EB6E.4050302@gmail.com> On 2012/06/07 06:29 PM, John Curran wrote: > I do not know know about others, but I have never said that, and would > disagree with it. I believe the the USG, like all political entities, > is indeed > capable of "doing bad things" with respect to the Internet infrastructure, > but that the particular organization in the USG, e.g. DoC/NTIA, has a very > solid track record in not meddling despite potential ability to do so. Including the intellectual propertyisation of the naming system... and here the contradiction is important, because even WIPO is roped into the process.... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jun 8 11:14:19 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:14:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <67B1E94C-083B-47B2-B7D1-48B13F1F7C7A@istaff.org> On Jun 7, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let me give you a more specific example. > > A proposed change in the ITRs says, > > 8A.4 "Member States shall take measures to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, while protecting and respecting the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." > > Now if that passes, do you think the presence or absence of that provision in a treaty will have any impact whatsoever on the stability, security of the Internet, the level of spam, or the privacy and foe rights of Internet users? Do you think that the complex trade-offs between freedom of expression, privacy, and fighting cybercrime that have to be operationalized in the real world by ISPs, users and states are affected in any significant way by that? Milton - I do not believe that the proposed change would directly impact Internet stability and security, so in that aspect we are indeed agreeing. I do believe that the subsequent rulemaking/regulating that each country would then engages in, as a result of having the above change in the ITRs, could have a huge impact on the ability for ISPs to form, innovate, and run efficiently. Many of us in the telecom industry dealt with the regulatory constraints and overhead of the '88 ITRs, and are not sanguine about what would happen to the entire Internet ecosystem if a similar approach were taken to Internet services. For example, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that Internet stability would require at least knowing all of the businesses in a country offering Internet services ("Internet Service Providers). As a result, many countries would deem that having some form of licensing of ISPs is a perfectly reasonable measure. Now start instituting fees and maybe specific requirements on companies (to make sure any ISP that applies are themselves 'stable') The next thing you know, you now have numerous licensing applications that need to be prepared by attorneys for submission, along with tens of thousands of dollars in fees. Did that little change to the ITRs improve stability of the Internet? Hard to tell. Might the measures adopted in each country as a result materially change the ability of the Internet to continue to grow and evolve? Certainly. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. My views consist of the above message, and for this weekend only, a patio view of wonderful sunny beach. Expect increased latency on all replies as I will be offline quite a bit... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 8 11:22:30 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:22:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, As more of a political than technical guy...at least hard-core Internet techies would say so : ) - again permit me to play interpreter/historian; which also has implications for Norbert's recent suggestions: David said: - a viable alternative has not been identified; My comment: Exactly David said: - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have soured folks in that community on all international bodies. My comment: If one has a long enough memory, the ITU WAS actively trying to kill the Internet, back in the 'Bell Heads v Net Heads' days late 80s to mid 90s...as a stalking horse for national government ministries of communications, and their (still) national monopoly state-owned telcos. That's a fact, not an opinion. David's being too kind - or should I say impressively diplomatic ; ) - calling experiences in that era merely 'less than positive.' Even if since then there has been an ITU/IETF liaison (originally Scott Bradner) for quite some time now, and a basic detente was long ago reached; and eventually IETF joined ITU and there is reasonably good tech specs coordination between the 2 organizations of late; at least that is my impression. Still, I'm sure many in the 'Internet technical community' remember having to literally and not figuratively fight off UN (ITU) efforts not to regulate the net, but to kill it. Yeah it is all good to say we should let bygones be bygones, but. Anyway, point remains, the nuances we are addressing here are all super-important and we/you need to think precisely about what you/we are aiming/asking for. Norbert's suggestions are a good starting point for further discussion, in a 'put your (engineering) money where your claimed priorities are' way. IF noone is putting up alternatives to the present, then the present continues to the future. You may or may not share McTim's view that change cannot be made/implemented, but if no demonstrably viable alternative exists, then we remain where we are. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Parminder, On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote: I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be that, like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the USG to do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more than sufficient to discourage such actions. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at APNIC back in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally asserting it had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet governance policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the governments of the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even discuss potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the OSI protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away). However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of the relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential alternatives (well, other than the ITU). Which UN body are you proposing? In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a technical person rather than a political one), a couple of potential explanations I can think of: - a viable alternative has not been identified; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in Internet technologies; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively impact Internet operational efficiency; and/or - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have soured folks in that community on all international bodies. However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree with any/all of the above). And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private meetings with government officials in which they told me that while publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those individuals have changed. More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a perception, particularly within at least part of the Internet technical community, that international bodies have in the past retarded innovation in the telecommunications sector in order to maintain the political/economic status quo, much to the detriment of human society as a whole. Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect unless/until concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen again, there will be resistance to change towards an international body. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 12:40:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:10:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD22B09.2070805@itforchange.net> On Friday 08 June 2012 12:31 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed making > some progress on this thread. > Snip > > Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in the > system, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or > UN process. > > And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament > scenario, however one wishes to characterize it: > > WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the table > to talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such that > USG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is something > to talk about. > > Until then, we are all just - bluffing - and the US/DOC/NTIA know > this, and won't engage since - there's nothing to talk about, given a > process that is working, and no credible alternative on the table. > Lee, Your mediation is welcome, and I also hope we are making progress. As per your suggestion, I agree that bringing a clear model to the table is necessary for making progress. For the start I suggest something like the following, and hope that IGC can be the one which comes up with a clear model and puts it on the table, after we have discussed the relative merits and disadvantages of different approaches well enough over here. We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR management, whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to an international body constituted under an international treaty limited to addressing the question of CIR oversight. The same treaty acknowledges and guarantees the basic principles of ICANN model of CIR management (DNS plus IANA) and the IETF model of technical standards development (as well if necessary the RIR model etc). (Note: It is only by an express international agreement on these basic principles and models respectively of CIR managements and tech standards development that the danger, as expressed by many, of ITU or some other body trying to replace the present decentralised and bottom up models by top down bureaucratic models, can be met effectively. Otherwise, with nothing really expressly agreed to and documented at the global level, there will always be a threat that one thing or the other can be slipped into global treaties, UN documents etc, and thus into the legitimate mandate of some bodies, maybe ITU, as many have been fearing about the forthcoming Dubai ITU meeting. An express agreement on basic principles of these models will give us the much needed stability, and remove the atmosphere of fear and distrust that exists today.) The treaty should structure the oversight structure in manner that it is impossible to do ad hoc interferences with CIR management, and the due process of oversight with all the necessary safeguards should be clearly laid out. A sufficiently high majority of the members of such a body should have to agree to exercise any oversight function (whereby, to allay some people's fears one may state that, it will be difficult to do anything without, say, members from North America and EU consenting). In default, ICANN's operational decisions can be considered automatically authorised. (This may need more thought, and I may be moving into slippery grounds here, but lets think out of the box and come up with possible ways to break the present logjam.) As I had proposed earlier, we can suggest some kind of innovative regional/ country based selection process for oversight body members, who may have some connections/ acceptance etc of the governments but also demonstrate clear and definitive support from a larger constituency. (Details can be worked out.) (I know some countries may try to rig this system in their internal selections, but if the broad directions are laid out, a very big majority will not. We will need to live with some levels of imperfections as long as the overall configuration does work well enough.) The total numbers of members should be manageable - less than 15-20, I would think. They should have sufficient techno-social standing in their country/ region. ICANN then gets re-constituted as an international body under the mentioned international agreement, and enters into an appropriate host agreement with the US. ..... Something on these lines, but it is completely open for comments and discussion. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 8 12:57:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:27:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> On Friday 08 June 2012 08:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > As more of a political than technical guy...at least hard-core > Internet techies would say so : ) - again permit me to play > interpreter/historian; which also has implications for Norbert's > recent suggestions: > > David said: > > - a viable alternative has not been identified; I think civil society should identify it. Civil society is by definition the non institutional space... All those alredy too thickly involved with IG institutions - and I include ICANN and ISOC here, and of course ITU too, are unlikely to do so. > > My comment: Exactly > > David said: > - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one > such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have > soured folks in that community on all international bodies. > > snip > > Still, I'm sure many in the 'Internet technical community' remember > having to literally and not figuratively fight off UN (ITU) efforts > not to regulate the net, but to kill it. > > Yeah it is all good to say we should let bygones be bygones, but. As proposed by me in the earlier email, lets insist that ICANN/ IETF models be officially sanctified by the same agreement that internationalises oversight. That would, to a good extent, take care of this issue isnt it. That is best way to resist undue demands and efforts of ITU, isnt it. > > Anyway, point remains, the nuances we are addressing here are all > super-important and we/you need to think precisely about what you/we > are aiming/asking for. I have said it, others may comment, propose alternatives, whatever... but we need to move from where we are..... > > Norbert's suggestions are a good starting point for further > discussion, in a 'put your (engineering) money where your claimed > priorities are' way. Internationalising oversight is very important imperative for many/ most countries, and I have no doubt that they will put in all the money that is needed. No doubt at all. Lets leave this argument out. > IF noone is putting up alternatives to the present, then the present > continues to the future. Exactly. > You may or may not share McTim's view that change cannot be > made/implemented, No, I dont, Never had sympathy for such fatalistic views. > but if no demonstrably viable alternative exists, then we remain where > we are. I dont know what demonstration means.... I cant demonstrate oversight models without they being actually accepted and implemented. But logically and conceptually, yes... that is what I am trying. > > Lee > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Conrad > [drc at virtualized.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] "Oversight" > > Parminder, > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote: >> I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech >> community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to >> the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs >> and the associated phenomenon. > > To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be that, > like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the USG to > do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more than > sufficient to discourage such actions. > >> If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly >> the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant >> guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present >> vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed >> without US and its allies agreeing to any change. > > Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at APNIC back > in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally asserting it > had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet governance > policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the governments of > the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even discuss > potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the OSI > protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away). > > However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of the > relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential > alternatives (well, other than the ITU). Which UN body are you proposing? > >> In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when >> in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when >> shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international >> law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the >> Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. > > While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a technical > person rather than a political one), a couple of potential > explanations I can think of: > > - a viable alternative has not been identified; > - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being > insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in > Internet technologies; > - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having > the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively impact > Internet operational efficiency; and/or > - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one > such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have > soured folks in that community on all international bodies. > > However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree with > any/all of the above). > >> And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive >> power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden >> changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many >> US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and >> patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, > > I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I > was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private > meetings with government officials in which they told me that while > publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of > the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work > with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less > ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. > However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those > individuals have changed. > > More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a perception, > particularly within at least part of the Internet technical community, > that international bodies have in the past retarded innovation in the > telecommunications sector in order to maintain the political/economic > status quo, much to the detriment of human society as a whole. > Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect unless/until > concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen again, > there will be resistance to change towards an international body. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Jun 8 13:33:44 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:33:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD22B09.2070805@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD22 B09.2070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8CF13B3FC94AD5F-2384-9961@webmail-d168.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- This statement by Parminder in his latest text -- "We will need to live with some levels of imperfections as long as the overall configuration does work well enough" -- could easily serve as the argument to bolster the "if ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: parminder To: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance Sent: Fri, Jun 8, 2012 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" On Friday 08 June 2012 12:31 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, If I may attempt to mediate yet again, I think we are indeed makingsome progress on this thread. Snip Next, the question you raise - well if the US NTIA plays a part in thesystem, why can't we swap out US NTIA for XYZ UN or other MSH/and/or UNprocess. And now we get to the poker analogy or unilateral disarmament scenario,however one wishes to characterize it: WHEN there is a plausible UN or global scenario/mechanism on the tableto talk through how exactly an alternative would work, such thatUSG/DOC/NTIA can get out of the engine room, THEN - there is somethingto talk about. Until then, we are all just - bluffing - and the US/DOC/NTIA know this,and won't engage since - there's nothing to talk about, given a processthat is working, and no credible alternative on the table. Lee, Your mediation is welcome, and I also hope we are making progress. Asper your suggestion, I agree that bringing a clear model to the tableis necessary for making progress. For the start I suggest somethinglike the following, and hope that IGC can be the one which comes upwith a clear model and puts it on the table, after we have discussedthe relative merits anddisadvantages of different approaches well enough over here. We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIRmanagement, whereby theoversight function is shifted from US gov to an international bodyconstituted under an international treaty limited to addressing thequestion of CIR oversight. The same treaty acknowledges and guarantees the basicprinciples of ICANN model of CIR management (DNS plus IANA) and theIETF model of technical standards development (as well if necessary theRIR model etc). (Note: It is only by an express international agreement on these basicprinciples and models respectively of CIR managements and techstandards development that the danger, as expressed by many, of ITU orsome other body trying to replace the present decentralised and bottomupmodels by top down bureaucratic models, can be met effectively.Otherwise, with nothing really expressly agreed to and documented atthe global level, therewill always be a threat that one thing or the other can be slipped intoglobal treaties, UN documents etc, and thus into the legitimate mandateof somebodies, maybe ITU, as many have been fearing about the forthcomingDubai ITU meeting. An express agreement on basic principles of thesemodels will give us the much needed stability, and remove theatmosphere of fear and distrust that exists today.) The treaty should structure the oversight structure in manner that itis impossible to do ad hoc interferences with CIR management, and thedue process of oversight with all the necessary safeguards should beclearly laid out. A sufficiently high majority of the members of such abody should have to agree to exercise any oversight function(whereby, to allay some people's fears one may state that, it will bedifficult to do anything without, say, members from North America andEU consenting). In default, ICANN's operational decisions can beconsidered automatically authorised. (This may need more thought, and Imay be moving into slippery grounds here, but lets think out of the boxand come up with possible ways to break the present logjam.) As I had proposed earlier, we can suggest some kind of innovativeregional/ country based selection process for oversight body members,who may have some connections/ acceptance etc of the governments butalso demonstrate clear and definitive support from a largerconstituency. (Details can beworked out.) (I know some countries may try to rig this system in theirinternal selections, but if the broad directions are laid out, a verybig majority will not. We will need to live with some levels ofimperfections as long as the overall configuration does work wellenough.) The total numbers of members should be manageable - less than15-20, I would think. They should have sufficient techno-socialstanding in their country/ region. ICANN then gets re-constituted as an international body under thementioned international agreement, and enters into an appropriate hostagreement with the US. ..... Something on these lines, but it is completely open for comments anddiscussion. parminder ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 8 16:08:39 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 20:08:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, As you recall but perhaps not others relatively new to the list, some of us were calling for an 'international framework convention for the Internet' some time back, to put in place just the kinds of things you are suggesting; i.e. a legitimized international agreement around the Internet. That may be the wrong name - and names matter so we better be extra careful here or we end up back in fear of a hypothetical treaty somehow messing up the net. We didn't have many agreeing with us back then; and I'm not sure we will have many more today. But I agree with you that absent a framework, some of us were predicting -accurately it turned out - that global Internet governance issues would not go away, but instead discussions would go on and on and...well here we still are, sigh. So I certainly agree with you, it couldn't hurt to more concretely outline some of the core tenets in what such a framework, or treaty, or whatever, might be, as you begin to do in your last email. Whether that evolves eventually into something that states sign on to, or just the people of the planet/civil society, well that is an independent variable I can't determine various probabilities for just yet. But there is room for discussion. However, and this goes back to the 'devil you know'/poker argument, likely if that agreement is framed -just - by people in the community that have not yet actually demonstrated - working code - to back up the fine words, then while it may be necessary, it will not be sufficient. IF it is assuming or proposing any technical changes in the system. So maybe we also need some global distributed rootsigning hackathon(s) and simulations to help out Norbert and his instant task force. Of course the prof suggests - further research is required! : ) Or that is happening in parallel to discussions among civil society on a framework, or whatever the thing is called. Which may some day become a state-backed treaty. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 12:57 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" On Friday 08 June 2012 08:52 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, As more of a political than technical guy...at least hard-core Internet techies would say so : ) - again permit me to play interpreter/historian; which also has implications for Norbert's recent suggestions: David said: - a viable alternative has not been identified; I think civil society should identify it. Civil society is by definition the non institutional space... All those alredy too thickly involved with IG institutions - and I include ICANN and ISOC here, and of course ITU too, are unlikely to do so. My comment: Exactly David said: - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have soured folks in that community on all international bodies. snip Still, I'm sure many in the 'Internet technical community' remember having to literally and not figuratively fight off UN (ITU) efforts not to regulate the net, but to kill it. Yeah it is all good to say we should let bygones be bygones, but. As proposed by me in the earlier email, lets insist that ICANN/ IETF models be officially sanctified by the same agreement that internationalises oversight. That would, to a good extent, take care of this issue isnt it. That is best way to resist undue demands and efforts of ITU, isnt it. Anyway, point remains, the nuances we are addressing here are all super-important and we/you need to think precisely about what you/we are aiming/asking for. I have said it, others may comment, propose alternatives, whatever... but we need to move from where we are..... Norbert's suggestions are a good starting point for further discussion, in a 'put your (engineering) money where your claimed priorities are' way. Internationalising oversight is very important imperative for many/ most countries, and I have no doubt that they will put in all the money that is needed. No doubt at all. Lets leave this argument out. IF noone is putting up alternatives to the present, then the present continues to the future. Exactly. You may or may not share McTim's view that change cannot be made/implemented, No, I dont, Never had sympathy for such fatalistic views. but if no demonstrably viable alternative exists, then we remain where we are. I dont know what demonstration means.... I cant demonstrate oversight models without they being actually accepted and implemented. But logically and conceptually, yes... that is what I am trying. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 8:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Parminder, On Jun 7, 2012, at 10:00 AM, parminder wrote: I take form the discussion that you and many of the so called tech community are convinced that US government cannot do anything bad to the Internet's architecture vis a vis what has been called the CIRs and the associated phenomenon. To clarify, a think a more accurate view of my position would be that, like with MAD nuclear doctrine, it is entirely possible for the USG to do something bad, however the potential repercussions are more than sufficient to discourage such actions. If so, why would you and others be against giving a UN body exactly the same role as the US gov has at present, as long as the relevant guarantees that the distributed system will be maintained as present vide an international agreement, which inter alia cannot be changed without US and its allies agreeing to any change. Why would you think I'm against such a role? While I was at APNIC back in mid-90s, I actually argued against the US unilaterally asserting it had the ability and prerogative to establish Internet governance policies via the white/green papers. Unfortunately, the governments of the AP region at the time couldn't be bothered to even discuss potential alternatives (after all, the world was moving to the OSI protocol suite and this TCP/IP stuff was just going to fade away). However, being new to this discussion and largely ignorant of the relevant international bodies, I'm unaware of actual potential alternatives (well, other than the ITU). Which UN body are you proposing? In other words, why does an arrangement looks so innocent when when in the hands of the US government, and the same arrangement when shifted to an international body backed by inviolable international law becomes the resounding shrill cry of 'UN control of the Internet'. Can you help me understand this apparent paradox. While this is outside my bailiwick (I tend to be viewed as a technical person rather than a political one), a couple of potential explanations I can think of: - a viable alternative has not been identified; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as being insufficiently nimble to adjust to the rapid changes inherent in Internet technologies; - an international body can be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as having the ability to impose policies that would impact negatively impact Internet operational efficiency; and/or - historical experiences by the Internet technical community with one such international body (the ITU) were less than positive and have soured folks in that community on all international bodies. However, I'm just guessing (and note I do not necessarily agree with any/all of the above). And there can be no doubt that US law and exercise of US's executive power is much more liable to arbitrary use and possible sudden changes than international law and its execution. The fact that many US based and pro US actors simply dont accept this simple and patently clear fact is quite, well, bugging to most non US actors, I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private meetings with government officials in which they told me that while publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those individuals have changed. More pragmatically, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a perception, particularly within at least part of the Internet technical community, that international bodies have in the past retarded innovation in the telecommunications sector in order to maintain the political/economic status quo, much to the detriment of human society as a whole. Regardless of the accuracy of this perception, I suspect unless/until concrete guarantees can be provided that this won't happen again, there will be resistance to change towards an international body. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 17:51:05 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 02:51:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > However, and this goes back to the 'devil you know'/poker argument, likely > if that agreement is framed -just - by people in the community that have not > yet actually demonstrated - working code - to back up the fine words, then > while it may be necessary, it will not be sufficient. > I believe there is more to than demonstrating something. On one hand we have a single country demonstrating its power and unilateral control, on the other hand we expect others to first show by example? The community is itself not well defined or recognized. An oversight mechanism has to be proposed. People will not just sit and dream it up. Governments are likely to attempt just that or are being tempted to do so already. While some on the list tend to immediately push my comments into support of IBSA and other non-existant proposed jargon or G-77, they very well mention governments that are talking about it. There is something other than G-77 in our part of the world that I referenced earlier the OIC that can be pursued and lobbied by non-USG parties. There is another getaway I notice, calling governments incapable bureaucracy, sorry to say, governments will always hold their control so demonstrating will not help achieve anything. A single sided documentation of a framework activity will lead no one anywhere and thats the basis where the uproar against ITU and its ITRs comes from. The table will be triangular, and though IGF's multistakeholderism remains immature but it is still the foundational principle of every IG related discourse. So you have framework point number one on the lines of the following that might gain a bit of considerable buyin: The open governance of the Internet and its associated addressing, protocols, services, standards and resources will always be protected through a true multistakeholder led model that gives no single individual, government or stakeholder group the unilateral right to oversee the functions of this global public resource. -- Regards. -------------------------- Foo -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 9 01:48:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:18:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> On Saturday 09 June 2012 01:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > However, and this goes back to the 'devil you know'/poker argument, > likely if that agreement is framed -just - by people in the community > that have not yet actually demonstrated - working code - to back up > the fine words, then while it may be necessary, it will not be sufficient. > > IF it is assuming or proposing any technical changes in the system. > > So maybe we also need some global distributed rootsigning hackathon(s) > and simulations to help out Norbert and his instant task force. Of > course the prof suggests - further research is required! : ) Lee, My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role that US gov plays at the moment. I would like to better understand this counter-argument. The US gov contributes neither working code not any significant finances to the present model. So why should an alternative oversight model assemble their technical and financial bid first for the changeover? The Tunis Agenda is clear that enhanced cooperation issue excludes day to day functioning of CIR/ tech management. In my proposal yesterday I in fact suggested that we go even further and through an international agreement sanctify the basic principles of the ICANN/ IETF/ RIR model, minus of course the oversight, which is then shifted vide the same agreement. I think (1) technical operations, (2) CIR oversight, and (3) other larger global public policies have to seen at three different levels, admitting of different analysis and institutional responses. Some level of connectedness between them cannot be denied, but seeing them separately for building an appropriate enhanced cooperation model will be useful. By my reading, Tunis agenda was able to see these three levels separately, and perhaps also as requiring different institutional responses/ solutions. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 9 02:07:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:37:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FD2E816.1060909@itforchange.net> On Saturday 09 June 2012 11:18 AM, parminder wrote: > Lee, > > My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes > in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why > this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming > in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role > that US gov plays at the moment. I would like to better understand > this counter-argument. The US gov contributes neither working code not > any significant finances to the present model. So why should an > alternative oversight model assemble their technical and financial bid > first for the changeover? And if indeed it is to be insisted that the tech/ financial models have to demonstrated first, it is not an invitation to go to the one international agency that has the money and some tech resources to attempt this kind of a thing - the ITU. But that is not acceptable either, right! One cant be putting completely un-doable conditions on the 'other party' and then say, see you are not able to do it and so you dont deserve what you seek. parminder > > The Tunis Agenda is clear that enhanced cooperation issue excludes day > to day functioning of CIR/ tech management. In my proposal yesterday I > in fact suggested that we go even further and through an international > agreement sanctify the basic principles of the ICANN/ IETF/ RIR model, > minus of course the oversight, which is then shifted vide the same > agreement. > > I think (1) technical operations, (2) CIR oversight, and (3) other > larger global public policies have to seen at three different levels, > admitting of different analysis and institutional responses. Some > level of connectedness between them cannot be denied, but seeing them > separately for building an appropriate enhanced cooperation model will > be useful. By my reading, Tunis agenda was able to see these three > levels separately, and perhaps also as requiring different > institutional responses/ solutions. > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 9 02:59:17 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 02:59:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Leaks from the good ship WCIT/ITU Message-ID: http://wcitleaks.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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jun 9 05:08:23 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:08:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD22B09.2070805@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2! 2B09.2070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:40 PM, parminder wrote: > We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR management, whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to an international body constituted under an international treaty limited to addressing the question of CIR oversight. I don't think it'd be possible to get consensus in the caucus on that, as evidenced by the fact that you've been saying this for years without getting a bite. But that's not the end of the story. To the best of my recollection, the caucus has on a number of occasions going back to WSIS called for internationalizing oversight, so that's nothing new. We also encouraged, in PrepCom 3 September 2005, the USG to make a unilateral declaration that it would not attempt to monkey with the root zone file, e.g. in cases where the US is in conflict with some country. As you might imagine, that would have been a difficult stance for the representatives to run up the food chain in the Bush administration. It would be interesting to explore whether such a declaration could be feasible if there's a second Obama administration, e.g. in the context of an expanded Affirmation of Commitments with buy in beyond the governments and other actors actively participating in ICANN. A problem arose back in WSIS as to the meaning of internationalization (or as many said, globalization, as the former can be read as between governments). And it's still here today. There's a chunk of the caucus that sees the preferred globalization as a truly independent ICANN, perhaps vested with IANA function, perhaps with a host country agreement---if I'm not mistaken one ICANN strategy review on this highlighted Switzerland and Belgium as the most viable locations. Personally, I think this would be politically easier to push through the rest if the atoms stayed in the US, but whatever. I also think, as per points Milton and David have made, that any transition would have to evolutionary, with a campaign of effective persuasion yielding serious buy in from a US administration that'd have to be willing to go to the Congress and all the heavy duty government agencies, private sector groups, and noncommercial actors who'd be skittish about change and make the case for why this should be done. It would be a battle, and political capital would have to be expended. The administration would be vilified on the political right and have to tough it out. And of course, if Obama loses, this becomes an even more distant possibility. The model you propose is obviously starkly different. Rather than making ICANN fully independent and responsible to the global community through a revamped and expanded AoC, you want a UN negotiation that would yield an oversight treaty (among governments, presumably with full SG input but not equality) in which ICANN accountability would not be via an AoC but rather to some new body that in all likelihood would be populated by government reps not actively involved in ICANN affairs, and with SGs in some sort of undefined role (I remain unconvinced any treaty-based system is going to treat SGs as peers with equal input, which is problematic to many). And this implies not an evolutionary process where actors in the US come to a new understanding that the USG link can be severed without risking anything to security stability etc, but rather a sort of confrontational NEIO-style negotiation in which the international community rises up en masse and tells the US it must let go, now. I don't see that working a) within the US, where everyone's back would get up a la WCIT, or b) in the international coalitions that would have to shape said treaty, because there's no evidence that the international community is en masse as unhappy as you are. David gave away the dirty little secret the other day, On Jun 8, 2012, at 2:51 AM, David Conrad wrote: > I have to admit seeing a bit of irony here: in the past (both while I was at APNIC and as IANA general manager), I was in numerous private meetings with government officials in which they told me that while publicly, they will continue to rail against the USG's "control" of the Internet, privately, they welcome it since the know how to work with the USG, don't trust (or perhaps more accurately, have less ability to influence) the alternatives, and it's the devil they know. However, that was some time ago, so perhaps the positions of those individuals have changed. I suspect many of us have had such conversations. So I'm very hard pressed to see OECD governments backing such a move, and the same may true for many developing and transitional countries who either are reasonably satisfied that stuff works, are tied into complex supportive relations with the US, or just don't care all the much either way, etc. I just don't see the scenario in which you get a clear and remotely consensual mandate though a cosmic UN battle in which governments' preferences follow a highly variable geometry and most well organized SGs would be opposed. But the two paths need not be mutually exclusive. It's not inconceivable that over some years we move on the first approach and see if it works. It it manifestly fails to meet global public interest criteria and satisfy enough governments and SGs, the question of establishing a separate UN thing to fix something that is indeed broken could then get a much more serious hearing. So my suggestion is to recognize that big changes in the architecture of global governance cannot be arrived at quickly and through confrontation, and that we should be in it for the long haul. It's be a lot easier to push for revolution once reform has not worked, if indeed it does not. And we should keep things in proportion and bear in mind that 99% of the actors relying on the Internet and caring how these things are done are probably unaware of the IGC. Even if we could reach consensus on that there should be rapid movement toward a new grand design, the response elsewhere could be, "IGC who?" I don't think we're in a position to unilaterally change the world along lines that lines that would be contentious, but we could weigh in and add weight to calls elsewhere to get started on a more evolutionary path. I'm sure we don't agree, but that's how I see it anyway… 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 Sat Jun 9 08:49:39 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 17:49:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Leaks from the good ship WCIT/ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://wcitleaks.org/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jun 9 13:23:54 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 19:23:54 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD2E816.1060909@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:37:18 +0530) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes > in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why > this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming > in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role > that US gov plays at the moment. Hi Parminder How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving this role out of their hands? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 9 13:41:55 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:41:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4703242b-a43a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> Maybe if there its ever a competent multistakeholder governance body, they will be convinced. avri Norbert Bollow wrote: >Parminder wrote: >> My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes > >> in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why >> this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming > >> in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role > >> that US gov plays at the moment. > >Hi Parminder >How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving >this role out of their hands? >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 jcurran at istaff.org Sat Jun 9 14:02:03 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:02:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <"4FD2E816.106 0 909"@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <33DC372F-E51B-479C-BB18-290296B8B114@istaff.org> On Jun 9, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: >> My proposal is clear in not seeking any significant technical changes >> in the system, or perhaps even any change at all. So I dont know why >> this engineering/ working code and financial argument keeps on coming >> in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role >> that US gov plays at the moment. > > Hi Parminder > How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving > this role out of their hands? For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? 1) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as the issuer of the IANA Functions contract? 2) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as a signatory to the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments? "Oversight role" could easily refer to #1 or #2, but there is nothing in theory that precludes another country from also signing an Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN and participating in the required reviews. With respect to role #1, I've attached an earlier email to this list which outlines one potential evolutionary path towards that outcome. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Many email messages look alike; remember to check headers before removing. Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4 > Date: October 25, 2011 7:20:38 AM EDT > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, John Curran > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Probably either.... >> >>> On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> 1. As you say, US Government deciding to hand over control. As you say, >>>> fairly unlikely. >>> >>> By "hand over control", what do you mean? Is this to ICANN or another party? > > It's not inconceivable to phase out the unique USG role. If I had > to make this happen, one possible approach would be the following: > > 1) Seek common support among the community that the scope of the > IANA Functions contract should not increase at at any time. > (Basic principle is to draw a boundary around the situation so > it does not grow while one is working on long-term solution) > > 2) Work to get multiple governments to enter into Affirmation of > Commitments with ICANN. Ensure that the reviews required by > such agreements are in common with the periodic reviews already > being performed. > > 3) Presuming ICANN award of the IANA Function resolictation, make > use of the initial three year performance period to transition > the IANA function of protocol registration from being directed > by the IANA function contract to instead being performed by an > independent contract between IAB(ISOC) and ICANN. Make clear > that this task should be omitted in any renewal terms. While > IAB could easily have any organization do this task, they should > voluntarily agree to have ICANN perform it, and in turn agree > to utilize ICANN for technical coordination of any assignments > which have implications to the DNS or address communities (Yes, > for those familiar with history, this is recreating the "PSO") > > 4) Repeating the principle, the Regional Internet Registries > should formalize their relationship with ICANN via contract, > and then with the IAB's endorsement, should make clear that > the task of maintaining the IANA number registry of does not > need to be included in the IANA Function second renewal period > as it is already being provided by ICANN to the community. > > 5) The last step is slightly challenging. Having worked over the > previous 5 years to make sure that the Domain Name portion of > ICANN has a distinct identity which includes all parties with > views on Domain Name policy, this Domain Name Policy group > reaches an agreement with the IAB that it will contract with > ICANN for root zone operation, and then enters an agreement > for ICANN to do so. It also agrees in turn to utilize ICANN > for technical coordination of any DNS matters which may have > implications to the address or Internet protocol communities. > Once this contract has been entered, ICANN and its constituent > components for technical coordination (IAB, RIRs, Domain Name > Policy group) make clear that no renewal of the IANA Functions > contract is required at all, and those governments supporting > this "refreshed" ICANN model would need to make clear that it > must be allowed to stand on its own. > > Folks will note that I have put the IAB(/IETF/ISOC) in a somewhat unique > role of having to concur with any changes to the system. This is not > because I believe that IAB has unilateral authority in these matters, > but do believe that the IAB (as the creator of these Internet identifier > spaces via its protocol work) when combined with inclusive multistakeholder > policy development organizations using open & transparent processes actually > do constitute valid consensus authorities if also operating under the ongoing > oversight as provided by ICANN (including its GAC and AoC processes.) > > FYI, > /John > > p.s. Oh yes, disclaimer time: the above thoughts are solely my own private > views. They most certainly do not represent any organization whatsoever. > May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this > email. Past Internet performance is no guide to future performance. Use > caution: email contents may be very hot. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 9 14:18:58 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:18:58 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] "Oversight" References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <"33DC372F-E51B-479C-BB 18-290296B8B114"@istaff.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE59@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> John: "Oversight role" could easily refer to #1 or #2, but there is nothing in theory that precludes another country from also signing an Affirmation of Commitments with ICANN and participating in the required reviews. Wolfgang: I proposed on this list in an earlier mail to discuss more in detail how the (decentralized) AoC Review process can be further improved. The multistakeholder AoC Review mechanism is - in my eyes - a de facto an ICANN oversight mechanism and it makes sense to look into the details how the process (in particular with the next round on A&T) can be further enhanced. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 9 23:40:04 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:40:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21863AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > >Now if that passes, do you think the presence or absence of that > provision in a treaty will have any impact whatsoever on the stability, > >security of the Internet, the level of spam, or the privacy and FoE > rights of Internet users? Do you think that the complex trade-offs > between freedom of expression, privacy, and fighting cybercrime that have to be > operationalized in the real world by ISPs, users and states are > >affected in any significant way by that? > > I do, because one the main planks of the ITU's ambition is to be tasked > with sorting out Cybercrime, and that will at the very least mean an > ITU-inspired clone of the Budapest Convention (as a proposal for > adoption by non-Budapest nations). > > That might well affect the rights of Internet users in those counties, > if it doesn't come with the safeguards enshrined in ratifying Budapest > (briefly: that you also have to match the ECHR as well). > As for Spam, I think their solution might be universal end-to-end > authenticated email, and that's a whole can of worms. [Milton L Mueller] Roland, the more you talk about this issue, the more you raise questions about how much you know about it. First, can you tell me (this _is_ a rhetorical question) what is the difference between the "safeguards" in ratifying Budapest and those in ratifying an ITU treaty? Because there aren't any. They are both international treaties formulated by intergovernmental organizations, with the exception that ITU is more universal in its membership than the Council of Europe, and thus more likely to fail to achieve consensus. And as for universal end-to-end email, you made me laugh out loud. If you believe that ITU, which has no serious leverage over the world's software developers, DNS providers or email operators, can magically make something happen that every other vendor who has tried, including Microsoft, has failed to do, then you attribute tremendous, almost magical powers to the ITU. Which shows how little you know about it. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jun 10 04:37:43 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 17:37:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] World map of dominating websites Message-ID: This note adds some explanation Adam >From: Anne-Rachel Inné >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:32:01 +0200 >To: africann at afrinic.net > >World >map of dominating websites > >http://pierretran.posterous.com/world-map-of-dominating-websites > > > > >The map above includes #1 websites in each >country, based on traffic rank (Alexa data, for >want of anything better). It doesn¹t include >properties. Google¹s traffic is scattered across >nearly >200 domains for local versions of Google >(google.se, >google.lt, >google.co.ukŠ). Google also >owns >23 >of the top 100 websites in the world, making >Facebook pale in comparison. >Source: webempires.org > >_______________________________________________ >AfrICANN mailing list >AfrICANN at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Jun 10 10:16:44 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:16:44 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] University of Toronto's Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program In-Reply-To: <9FE57F16-8369-46AF-B82A-ED8E1ADA6ED0@privaterra.org> References: <883F7978-D547-4E38-BD92-735666096D64@utoronto.ca> <9FE57F16-8369-46AF-B82A-ED8E1ADA6ED0@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <010601cd4713$aeeb7670$0cc26350$@uol.com.br> Hi Robert, nice to hear about it I will be quite interested in such studies in my country, since I am very involved with several activities regarding cybersecurity focused on women and children. Thanks for sharing this. We can talk more during ICANN meeting in Prague, I hope you will be there. Though my agenda as chair of NomComm will be full, I will certainly set some priority to talk with you! All the best, Abrazos, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464 Dissemine esta idéia: Digite o dominio ao inves do telefone. Domain dialing Descrição: Descrição: Siter-16-square.png www.siter.com De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Robert Guerra Enviada em: sexta-feira, 8 de junho de 2012 09:04 Para: Internet Governance Caucus Cc: Ron Deibert Assunto: [governance] University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program Dear Internet Governance colleagues, Let me share with all of you the following announcement. I think some of you might find it of interest. regards Robert Guerra Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org --- University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs , University of Toronto (with the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC )) are pleased to announce the launch of the Cyber Stewards program. The Cyber Stewards program is designed to address the urgent need to support South-based cyber security scholars, advocates, and practitioners to articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. Cyber Stewards will be selected from across the global South. They will work locally while networking globally through the auspices of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Cyber Stewards will define their own scope of work and activities based on their local context and pressing concerns. The expectation will be that Cyber Stewards will map, analyze, and ultimately impact the cyber security priorities of their own countries and regions on the basis of shared knowledge and practices. “We are excited about this opportunity, and the prospects that the Cyber Stewards network can accomplish,” says Ron Deibert , Director of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. “Working together, we envision the Cyber Stewards will help contribute to a growing global movement of citizens, scholars and practitioners - a community of practice - whose aim is to protect cyberspace as a secure but open commons of information in which human rights are respected.” Detailed Overview As cyberspace expands and deepens in the global South, there are growing concerns around how cyberspace will be governed and constituted. The security of cyberspace is now an urgent concern. A cyber arms race among governments and non-state actors has begun in earnest. Facing a growing number of threats, from cyber crime to espionage and warfare, governments are developing ambitious cyber security strategies, some of which include far-reaching and potentially ominous censorship, surveillance, and information operation components. Unless proper checks and balances are instituted locally, there will continue to be strong pressures to build “surveillance-by design” into newly built infrastructure -- particularly the newly emerging mobile and social media ecosystems. These troubling trends of information control and securitization portend the gradual disintegration of an open and secure commons of information on a global scale. It is essential that the process of cyber securitization taking place in the South includes local voices who can articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. The aim of the Cyber Stewards project is to help support and develop those local voices. Why “Steward”? Stewardship is typically defined as an ethic of responsible behaviour in a situation of shared resources, typically with respect to the natural environment and the commons, such as the oceans and outer space. Although cyberspace is more of a mixed pooled resource that cuts across public and private sector than a commons per se, the concept of stewardship still carries considerable merit: it implies behaviour that goes beyond self-interest to accomplish something in the service of a wider public good. It emphasizes the need for balance and the appreciation of the complexity of the system. It carries with it a connotation of custodianship and citizen-based monitoring, all of which mesh with the aims of the network we are setting out to build. Why should South-based scholars and practitioners link up with a North-based institution, like the University of Toronto? Moving forward, it is imperative that stewards of cyberspace include representation from all stakeholders in the global communications environment, and that bridges are built between communities across North, South, East and West. Although the challenges of each locality are unique, together we live in a shared communications space that is becoming increasingly dense and interconnected. We have a shared responsibility to sustain that space in a manner that supports everyone’s rights, while keeping it secure. Networking South-based Cyber Stewards with the University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab’s already existing network of collaborative partnerships will help accomplish that goal and hopefully build a broad community of global Cyber Stewards that empowers us all collectively. Who will make up the Cyber Stewards program and how will it operate? There will be a diversity in research topics and methods, as well as regional and disciplinary backgrounds, in the constitution of Cyber Stewards. We anticipate that the group will form a network of peers, in which the Cyber Stewards regularly interact with each other, engage in knowledge sharing and joint research and development, and mutual mentorship. Cyber Stewards will interact virtually as well as through occasional joint workshops and major conferences, facilitated by the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. Interested parties from any of the following regions should send a CV and a five page outline that details project ideas to cyberstewards at citizenlab.org (Central America, Caribbean, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, and Asia). About the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs is a centre of interdisciplinary research, policy development, and other activities in emerging security issues that are critical to Canada's future. Established in spring 2010 with a grant from the Government of Canada, the Canada Centre's areas of interdisciplinary study include cyber security, global health, food security, and region-specific concerns, such as the future of the Arctic, post-Soviet Europe, the new Asian powers, and the changing face of the Americas. About the Citizen Lab The Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Canada focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights. We are a “hothouse” that combines the disciplines of political science, sociology, law, computer science, engineering, and graphic design. Our mission is to undertake advanced research and engage in development that monitors, analyses, and impacts the exercise of political power in cyberspace. We undertake this mission through collaborative partnerships with leading edge research centers, organizations, and individuals around the world, and through a unique “mixed methods” approach that combines technical analysis with intensive field research, qualitative social science, and legal and policy analysis methods undertaken by subject matter experts. The Citizen Lab’s ongoing research network includes the OpenNet Initiative, OpenNet Eurasia, and Opennet.Asia as well as the Cyber Security Stewards network. The Citizen Lab was a founding partner of the Information Warfare Monitor (2002-2012). The Citizen Lab developed the original design of the Psiphon censorship circumvention software, which spun out of the lab into a private Canadian corporation (Psiphon Inc.) in 2008. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 957 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 kovenronald at aol.com Sun Jun 10 18:18:19 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:18:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Estonian President on Cyber security and freedom In-Reply-To: <8CF156DCC6CBF12-2020-11C9E@webmail-m168.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF156DCC6CBF12-2020-11C9E@webmail-m168.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CF156E136695B6-2020-11CB6@webmail-m168.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Koven Ronald To: wolfgang ; cynthia ; powerginny ; clubsierra ; susanm ; EMBench ; abethel ; btrionfi ; alison.meston ; jsimon ; jmunoz ; rtrotti ; richard.winfield ; guy.black ; ed.taylor ; Lucie.Morillon ; S.Coudray ; G.Berger ; j.karklins ; KovenRonald ; tonypell Sent: Mon, Jun 11, 2012 12:16 am Subject: Estonian President on Cyber security and freedom The President of Estonia at the International Conference of Cyber Conflict, 8 June 2012 09.06.2012 Cyber-security and liberal democracies For the last three conferences here in Tallinn, I have focused on technological threats from cyberspace. I shan't spend much time on these matters today. Recent events only have confirmed and brought into the public eye what you at this conference have been discussing for years. What has changed, though, is the overall level of international awareness of cyber threats. Five years ago, Estonia was a lone voice in the desert raising the alarm. Cyber defence now is the hottest topic in Washington, London, Paris and many other capitals, though I regret that there is a paucity of strategic awareness about this in Brussels. This year, there was a long waiting list to get into this conference. Next year, we shall probably need a bigger venue. Cyber is everywhere, permeates everything Today, however, I don't want to talk about cyber defence. Defence is only sensible with regards to an object to be defended, so I want to ask – what is it that we are defending when we speak of cyber defence? Cyberspace is quickly growing to encompass the whole world. You know the indicators: two billion netizens, with mobile internet promising to double that number; data and processes moving to the cloud; an internet of things, with an IP address assigned to your refrigerator; business and government digitizing their core processes, and here in Estonia, even online national elections. The physical and the cyber worlds are quickly converging and boundaries between the "cyber" and the "real" world have begun to disappear. This in turn implies a convergence between cybersecurity and overall global security. We already have witnessed one real case of cyber-kinetic convergence in the Georgia-Russia War. To understand the future direction of cyber conflicts, we must cast a wider glance. At the hundreds of conferences like these that have been held in the past decade, the focus has been much on the technology and far too little on the broader issues and trends, as if nothing similar has ever taken place before. Yet it has. Industrialization in the 19th Century started a process that led on the one hand to the West outstripping the Rest in wealth, a divide challenged only in the past decade. Yet it also created the tools for the industrialization of death in World Wars I and II. Technology matters strategically, politically and morally so we need to keep in mind the bigger picture and what is at stake when we discuss different societies' and countries assumptions about the nature of the cyber world. These assumptions determine how the internet will be used. Like it or not, we have now entered a new period of struggle between competing systems of government and economic organization. This time, there is no Iron Curtain, no statement of hostilities, no declared conflict of ideologies. What is at stake in this struggle is the liberal-democratic model of an open society and market economies that are transparent and rule bound. This time, the struggle will play itself out in cyberspace. Perhaps, it will remain be a global cold peace, but a cold one nevertheless. This is a struggle we find ourselves surprised to be engaged in. Twenty years ago, we argued whether history was eventually to end with near universal assent to the principles of liberal democracy and competitive market capitalism. The events of the 1990s seemed to bear this diagnosis out. The formerly Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Latin American and Asian countries joined the family of liberal democracies. Where democracy had not yet prevailed, the increasing commercial and informational links of a flat world convinced us it was only a matter of time before it did so. Our optimism has proven rather naïve, for we did not count on the adaptive cleverness of the competition. The mechanisms of preserving the power of the corrupt and despotic have proven themselves or their elites as a functioning and viable alternative to democracy. This alternative path – authoritarian, often mercantile capitalism – has become for a number of countries the preferred route. We believe still in our implicit neo-hegelianism, that these are but temporary setbacks in the ineluctuable march of history toward democracy. That a middle class will rise up and protest. And we see in the overthrow of despotisms a vindication of our hopes, yet word is still out whether over-throwing an autocrat necessarily results in his replacement by a democratic government. Were these countries simply poor and ruled by rent-seeking authoritarians, this would not perhaps bother us so much. But authoritarian capitalism well endowed with natural resources, i.e. petro-states with corrupt yet efficient secret police, combined with muzzled journalism, or with plentiful cheap labor, has flourished under the conditions of free trade and other countries' open markets. Illiberal, non-democracies gain too from cyber This otherwise old model of political control and collusion between government, business and crime, whether you call it reformed communism, crony capitalism, sovereign democracy, the Beijing consensus or just plain despotism, has gained a new lease on life in or through cyberspace. We in the liberal democratic West, in countries with low scores on the Transparency International Corruption Index, have built a solid firewall between the private and public sectors. Even the term Public-Private Partnership attests to the relative separation of the two. No such separation in mercantilistic or authoritarian kleptocratic regimes exists. One serves the other. The net has been a double-edged sword for the democratic activist or investigative journalist in a non-democratic society. Egyptian and Tunisian citizens left no doubt in their words, their deeds, their protest marches and prayers, that they yearn for freedom and democracy. The internet is a tool for Russians, Chinese, Iranians to learn about the outside world (and via that their own world), to document government corruption and misbehaviour, post their anger and disappointment, discover the like-minded and debate over disagreements. Yet as we have seen in the past years, the internet can also strengthen the hand of savvy authoritarians and mobsters, allowing them to track their citizens, squash protests, censor dissent, and bully their people. At the same time, these countries and their criminal networks can serve as a web-enabled base of operations for globalized networks of smuggling, money laundering and intellectual property theft. If these countries oppressed only their own citizens, we might satisfy ourselves with an attitude of benign neglect. Yet these countries' elites have realized they can put their fingers on the economic scales to tip them in their own favour. Intellectual property, R&D investments both public and private, make modern Western economies run. A Western company that invests hundreds of millions or billions in new products can see this all evaporate if the research is stolen. (Recent US Congressional testimony by former FBI Assistant Director Shaun Henry gives some examples.) Someone, somewhere else, can obtain for free what your country's best and brightest have developed, often from years of research. The innovator loses his investment, your country loses the tax revenue, and someone else reaps the profits. This is piracy. Pure and simple. It is as dangerous and as threatening as earlier, more primitive forms of piracy off the Barbary Coast at the beginning of the 19th century, or today off the coast of Somalia. And it will only get worse. Cyberspace: a power vacuum It took the West 350 years to get from Thomas Hobbes' description of anarchy in 17th century Europe - a "war of all against all", in which life is nasty, brutish and short – to a consensual model that assigns monopoly to sovereign states on the use of force within borders, and to develop institutions and norms to mitigate international anarchy. At our current rate of progress, perhaps best described by Moore's Law, we don't have that time. At its worst, cyberspace now resembles a Hobbesian state of nature. Our national and international institutions have failed to prevent a continuous low-level insurgency of crime, both organized and unorganized, terrorism, state-sponsored attacks and cross-border vigilantism, state-organized as well as ad hoc (viz. Anonymous and LulzSec). There are many reasons for this effective power vacuum in cyber space, most of which you have discussed this week. But I would like to add one more possible and more fundamental explanation into the mix: The open structure of the internet forces countries with irreconcilable domestic political arrangements into almost inevitable conflict. Borders no longer contain bad behaviour, states no longer are held responsible for illegal actions emanating from within their territory. Look at it from the perspective of an authoritarian government that needs to maintain its power structure and placate its stakeholders and private sector partners while preventing a democratic revolution. Up to the internet age, the Westphalian system,cuius regio, eius religio and the principle of the inviolability of borders protected the regime. A ruler could do as he wished, so long as he stayed in his own borders. In cyberspace, these countries are faced with the import of potentially disruptive liberal aspects of open societies. The means of expression, transparency and accountability empowered by a Google search, a YouTube video, or a tweet are a direct threat to a non-inclusive economic and restrictive political system; the World Wide Web turns them into domestic threats to the regime. So, these governments must rely on filtering and blocking, using sophisticated monitoring and filtering software while co-opting internet companies operating in their country. When these methods fail, they cut off the internet wholesale, as the Mubarak regime did in Egypt. Unfortunately for us, the openness of the internet also means our own citizens are no longer isolated from the violence, corruption and illiberalism of others' domestic spheres. These regimes, and actors under their protection, use - with near impunity – the same tools against Estonians or Americans that they employ against their own citizens and companies. During the Cold War, Communist leaders may have been frustrated by the freedom within Western countries, but there was a limit to what they could do about it. Today, they can deface your website, DDoS your server, hack your email, steal your data, identity and financial information, spy on your friends, plant malware in your company or government, exploit your industrial control systems, and so on. Our strength – our openness – is at once also our greatest liability. This is the crux of the challenge we face. This is especially true in a small country like mine that Freedom House ranks number one in the world in internet freedom. We must choose between two paths – either we can change the nature of the internet by placing a Westphalian regulatory structure on internet governance, or we can change the world. The SCO and CIS countries prefer the former. Authoritarian kleptocracies may benefit from anarchy in cyber space but, even more, they fear the West is attempting to orchestrate an Arab Spring or an Orange Revolution. This helps explain why illiberal states want to develop new regulations for the internet, to put another brick in the wall (or is it another wall in the BRICs?), expanding their Westphalian space to cyber. This would be sovereignty on their terms, disabling the freedom and sovereignty of ourcitizens and businesses. This December, in Dubai, the International Telecoms Union will hold its first world conference since 1988. 24 years is a millennium in cyberspace. The outcome of this conference, and related processes, will help determine the topography of the web for the next two decades. While this conference may fall into the domain of ministries of commerce and communications, make no mistake, there will be major cyber security ramifications. More ominously we will face calls to limit free expression as we know it on the web today. The CIS and SCO will again present proposals that would undermine the current multi-stakeholder model of the internet, replacing it with a scheme that would allow them to expand their control of their own populations and economies extending it to undermine the freedom and openness we value today. They will claim that sovereignty in cyberspace is necessary to rein in cybercrime and cyber-terrorism. Reality belies that claim. International legislation to combat these problems is long in place – in democratic countries. Thus to be a cyber-criminal or hacktivist in Estonia or United States is a dangerous proposition. Last November, a joint operation between the FBI and the Estonian Security Police culminated in the apprehension of the botnet and spyware group Rove Digital, the largest arrests of cyber-criminals to date anywhere in the world. Similarly, law enforcement has had no problem putting illegal file-sharing siteMegauploads out of business or picking up the lead hackers of Anonymous. For some reason, our requests for legal assistance to go after similar criminals in China, Russia or Iran mostly go unanswered. The world doesn't need more sovereignty, it needs countries to actually exercise the sovereign control they already have. The world is not clearly divided into two camps on this matter. Between the US, the EU and like-minded nations at one end of the spectrum, and authoritarian countries at the other extreme, a large number of countries sit on the fence on the issue of the future architecture of the internet. They have legitimate concerns about internet governance, so we must focus our attention on their needs while reassuring them about our actions and intentions. I would conclude with five observations on how to proceed: First, we must fully embrace the information society • The 20th century paper-based, brick and mortar bureaucratic administrative state is a legacy technology. Today, in Estonia, I can start a business, scrutinize my medical records, sign contracts and even vote from my desktop. And our innovation in public-sector IT is only the tip of the iceberg to massive changes that will disrupt government as much as the information technology already has in the private sector. • New uses of technology will create new security risks. These risks will require us to use strong security and an architecture like the Estonian x-road that enable authentication, digital signatures and interactions more secure than their paper equivalent. Countries that fail to give their citizens a digital ID of equivalent states to a paper ID are luddites, pure and simple. • We need to harness the potential for disruptive change and extend the digital society across borders. Last year, over 1000 Finnish entrepreneurs started businesses online in Estonia using their Finnish electronic ID card. This is only a tiny example of how we could integrate business and societies across borders. The hurdles are today bureaucratic and political, not technical. Second, be pragmatic and learn from models that work • We have many lessons to learn from the successful war on terror. In the ten years since 9/11, we have achieved a level of international law-enforcement and intelligence cooperation and operational proficiency that would have been inconceivable in the 1990s. Why can't we achieve the same in cyberspace? • Both domestically and internationally, we need to use the organizations and structures we already have, adapting them to new challenges. A good example is the Estonian Cyber Defence League. We took our existing Defence League, a voluntary structure analogous to a national or home guard, and brought together private and public sector cybersecurity experts the state could never afford to hire, but who are willing to volunteer their time and effort for free out of patriotism. Third, embrace Radical transparency Liberal-democratic, free societies can best meet a security threat when they adopt an ethic of openness and transparency. • One of the strategic choices Estonia made in 2007 was to be very open about cyber attacks. This brave public acknowledgment of our weaknesses made us stronger, and made the world more aware of cyber threats; made the world safer. • The key to cyber defence, even against sophisticated state actors, is civilian cyber-security. Cyber attacks are such an attractive option for our adversaries because they neutralize the West's conventional military superiority, targeting our personal data, banks, utilities, sources of information and confidence in our government. For this reason, our center of gravity must lie in raising the security savvy of our private sector and individual users. • This in turn requires openness and sharing. Detailed intelligence about APT-s and SCADA vulnerabilities isn't useful if it's marked TOP SECRET and potential victims don't find out about the threat until it is too late. Openness and transparency is in the DNA of our societies, so let's leverage that advantage. Paradoxically, openness and transparency is a tactic that can even work for the adversaries of the World Wide Open Society. The Iranian CERT released the code for the Flame virus, and within some weeks, several European teams had analyzed the malware, reverse engineered it and designed patches, so that in effect the Iranians, using openness, piggybacked on the cooperative community that has developed in our free societies to increase their own security. Fourth, let's get our act together on international cooperation We've been talking about international cooperation in the cyber domain since 2007, but we have a long way to go. In NATO, we will only reach the bare minimum acceptable level, defending NATO's own networks and N-CIRC FOC, in 2014. But NATO lacks a more ambitious vision for a post-2014 period. And in the EU, we still do not have a comprehensive approach to cyber-security. Sadly, these are also not auspicious times to speak of the transatlantic link. • Barack Obama is the US' first Pacific President, but the US military's shift toward Asia is a long term if not permanent change that will continue under any administration. Within Europe, we are having difficulty meeting the basic commitment to meet NATO's requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defence, which only a few Allies do. • Austerity measures have also made it more difficult to speak of major European investments into cyber-security. This is misguided. Investments in conventional defense, where there have been few advances in the last decade perhaps can bear with austerity. Failure to invest in a realm changing by leaps and bounds is simply foolish and for governments and innovative companies, irresponsible. Mostly, I worry about international cooperation actually becoming less open and flexible. The international network of CERT-s that grew out of the academic world in the 1990s was flexible, decentralized and open. In recent years, as countries have made cyber-security a matter of national security, they have focused capability development in military and intelligence organizations, complicating international cooperation instead of encouraging it. If we do not change course, we will exacerbate a fundamental mismatch between what we must defend internationally – economies and lives that cross borders, especially in the EU – and the mostly national means we are using to achieve this goal. Finally, this audience must develop a clear community ethic You are no longer practitioners of an obscure, technical area. Prime ministers, CEOs and your voters and consumers are looking to you for answers. You have responsibility for giving good advice and making prudent decisions and if you screw up, we will all suffer. So it's time to think about hard questions: • What is your standard of evidence for a good argument, good advice? • How do you insure you are listening to dissenting voices? • How do you ensure accountability? • What is the role of industry within the academic and policy world? To sum up I believe that liberal democracy, open markets and accountable institutions can prevail today as surely as they did during the Cold War. But we do not live in a deterministic world. Success will demand good people to do smart things, and the price of hubris and misjudgment could well be failure. Ultimately, what is it that we're talking about when we say international cooperation, openness, and so on? Our countries, our companies, our analysts – they form a network. In addition to the physical network and the software running on it, there is a network of organizations and people. If a network consists of many connections between nodes, and information travels quickly between the nodes, the network will be flexible, resilient and quick to react. The internet is such a network, as is the human brain. International cooperation, information sharing, openness and transparency, the comprehensive approach, public-private cooperation and so on are not just polite words. They are part of building a collective brain that leverages the fundamental, inherent advantages of free, open societies. At its best, this collective brain could be far more intelligent, far nimbler, than any adversary, any threat. For this collective brain to work, however, we have to allow the synapses to fire, and we have to allow neural pathways to develop across organizational and international boundaries. If, on the other hand, we bottle up information, erect barriers, and treat cooperation as a formality, we lobotomize ourselves. Put another way, we fail to learn from the open and decentralized architectural principles of the internet. And we will lose. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 11 02:29:52 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU In-Reply-To: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> References: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> OK, the _S_ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, *and not one name has been submitted!* The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an Appeals Team. See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the Appeals Team members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt Best, Tom Lowenhaupt *As sent on May 24...* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fellow Members of the IGF, With "Governance" a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter , the role of the Appeals Team is: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal." "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed." "An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team." Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. This letter calls for nominees -- self or otherwise -- for a new Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] We look forward to your participation in this important activity. On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 11 03:30:13 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:00:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@uzh.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2! 2B09.2070805@itforchange.net> <73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94@ uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FD59E85.1020109@itforchange.net> Hi Bill Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis. A few comments inline. On Saturday 09 June 2012 02:38 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:40 PM, parminder wrote: > >> We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR >> management, whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to >> an international body constituted under an international treaty >> limited to addressing the question of CIR oversight. > > I don't think it'd be possible to get consensus in the caucus on that, > as evidenced by the fact that you've been saying this for years > without getting a bite. But that's not the end of the story. What I was proposing now has two important new elements (1) oversight is treated in its narrow sense, and separated from from any framework that may seek to address larger global public policy issues (2) any treaty that establishes the internationalised status of ICANN at the same time recognises and formally legitimises the current ICANN/IETF/RIR model which thus blocks efforts at any significant encroachments on this model, something which we keep fearing, and quite justifiably so. > > To the best of my recollection, the caucus has on a number of > occasions going back to WSIS called for internationalizing oversight, > so that's nothing new. Any operational model that got suggested? Other than goodwill declarations by the US, which are not enough. I read the model offered by Carlos Afonso and find it quite interesting and something that can be worked on. > We also encouraged, in PrepCom 3 September 2005, the USG to make a > unilateral declaration that it would not attempt to monkey with the > root zone file, e.g. in cases where the US is in conflict with some > country. Useful but hardly enough. Other countries, and yes, it includes its people, want legal guarantees, not goodwill declarations. As you can see US with its insistence on kind of directly taking change of the security function around the root is increasing rather than decreasing its control. In the circumstances, it is rather hypocritical to expect other countries to reduce their corresponding concerns vis a vis the root. > As you might imagine, that would have been a difficult stance for the > representatives to run up the food chain in the Bush administration. > It would be interesting to explore whether such a declaration could > be feasible if there's a second Obama administration, e.g. in the > context of an expanded Affirmation of Commitments with buy in beyond > the governments and other actors actively participating in ICANN. As I said in an earlier email, I dont quite well 'understand'(not that I dont know of) Affirmation of Commitments. A genuine agreements should have reciprocal commitments and signature of all the involved parties. Unilateral commitments, and that is what the AoC model is, is not sufficient. I find it as a kind of new term, and a new politico-legal fiction, that is based on recognising trusteeship by one or two parties for the rest of the world. I dont find such arrangements democratic, and also unacceptable on various other counts. BTW, when you mention 'buy-in' of other governments and other actors, what does such a 'buy in' mean? Just accepting and becoming a part of a carefully designed arrangement of, by and for the US? > > A problem arose back in WSIS as to the meaning of internationalization > (or as many said, globalization, as the former can be read as between > governments). And it's still here today. There's a chunk of the > caucus that sees the preferred globalization as a truly independent > ICANN, perhaps vested with IANA function, By all evidence the US has been tightening rather than loosening its hold over the IANA function, and that you know is the real issue that bothers non US actors. > perhaps with a host country agreement---if I'm not mistaken one ICANN > strategy review on this highlighted Switzerland and Belgium as the > most viable locations. Personally, I think this would be politically > easier to push through the rest if the atoms stayed in the US, but > whatever. > > I also think, as per points Milton and David have made, that any > transition would have to evolutionary, I see no real evolution towards internationalisation, but rather evidence of greater centralisation, on the crucial IANA function, and also with increased securitisation of the Internet. > with a campaign of effective persuasion yielding serious buy in from a > US administration that'd have to be willing to go to the Congress and > all the heavy duty government agencies, private sector groups, and > noncommercial actors who'd be skittish about change and make the case > for why this should be done. It would be a battle, and political > capital would have to be expended. The administration would be > vilified on the political right and have to tough it out. And of > course, if Obama loses, this becomes an even more distant possibility. This practical question of why a 'bad actor' would do what we want it to do is rather more general.... why would a china or russia change their international positions that serve the existing regimes, why would ITU not want more power.... Beyond a point this doesnt effect our, as in CS's, ethical positions, and the directions in which it seeks change. > > The model you propose is obviously starkly different. Rather than > making ICANN fully independent and responsible to the global community > through a revamped and expanded AoC, you want a UN negotiation that > would yield an oversight treaty (among governments, presumably with > full SG input but not equality) in which ICANN accountability would > not be via an AoC but rather to some new body that in all likelihood > would be populated by government reps not actively involved in ICANN > affairs, We can ensure that this is not so, in a manner perhaps similar to how global techical standards bodies dont get populated by gov reps, but by appropriately informed people..... and as i said, we can keep an appropriate model of national/ regional selections that does involve a larger local constituency then just an ad hoc gov appointment.... we can put general directions that i am sure most countries will largely observe. This does strain the westphalian model but that is the idea. > and with SGs in some sort of undefined role (I remain unconvinced any > treaty-based system is going to treat SGs as peers with equal input, > which is problematic to many). I am always happy to hear what kind of 'equal treatment' model do you really want. And what model of stakeholder rep selection, the two issues being related. (and whether such a model for just oversight function also extends to general Carlos suggested one for the international level, and also CGI.Br is a model to look at. So, do we have a model to propose. Lets not think of whether govs will agree or not. Lets place the model on the table and say this is what we are ready to go with. It is important to put forward the oversight model that is ethical and our best option to be relevant to the global discussions. Discussions and negotiations start from there. Not to do so is to legitimise the status quo. > And this implies not an evolutionary process where actors in the US > come to a new understanding that the USG link can be severed without > risking anything to security stability etc, There is limit to which the international community can be asked to closely follow and cater to understanding and preference of various actors in the US. No, civil society needs to speak against such an arrangement. Lets have the guts to say that. I prefer to follow political systems that I have participation in. Will we offer a similar analysis of why things are as they are in China - after all there too there are a variety of interests, and also some very legitimate ones... and there too people speak of evolutionary changes..... do we have sympathy with such positions, or do we say, no, this is wrong and wont work, and we are against it. We need to speak up in the same manner about what is wrong with US's stance. > but rather a sort of confrontational NEIO-style negotiation in which > the international community rises up en masse and tells the US it must > let go, now. same analysis can be made about China's and Russia's international stances.. why dont we get more 'understanding'. Why dont we get a little less 'confrontational' about there stances, and well, also about ITU.... why such differential treatment. > I don't see that working a) within the US, where everyone's back would > get up a la WCIT, or b) in the international coalitions that would > have to shape said treaty, because there's no evidence that > the international community is en masse as unhappy as you are. Many many more are very unhappy then you seem to realise. Most of the global IG civil society space has been somewhat curiously constructed within structural forms and constraints that seem to blind it to this very wide spread unhappiness. (more comments below) > David gave away the dirty little secret the other day, > snip > I suspect many of us have had such conversations. So I'm very hard > pressed to see OECD governments backing such a move, On the contrary, I think non US OECD governments will immediately agree to an international oversight board/ body, of course with all the due safeguards which I have been talking about. . > and the same may true for many developing and transitional countries > who either are reasonably satisfied that stuff works, No, none is satisfied. Almost all countires given the option between the present system and an international oversight body, with due safeguards, will immediately go for the latter. I have not the slightest doubt about this. > are tied into complex supportive relations with the US, or just don't > care all the much either way, etc. I just don't see the scenario in > which you get a clear and remotely consensual mandate though a cosmic > UN battle in which governments' preferences follow a highly variable > geometry and most well organized SGs would be opposed. If we look strictly and only at narrow oversight issue, agreement will be possible. That way no international agreement is easy. Do you think climate change negotiations are easy; but doesnt stop people to seek them, no. > > But the two paths need not be mutually exclusive. It's not > inconceivable that over some years we move on the first approach and > see if it works. It it manifestly fails to meet global public > interest criteria and satisfy enough governments and SGs, the question > of establishing a separate UN thing to fix something that is indeed > broken could then get a much more serious hearing. Neither do I see any reform happening, nor is the present arrangement acceptable at the level of democratic principle (and that is not changing). For countries worried about security aspects (as US itself is) what is sought to be prepared for is the 'worst case scenario'. (as we all do for our security, we dont make arrangements for security of our house based just on the empirical premise that no one may have ever earlier burgled our house). > > So my suggestion is to recognize that big changes in the architecture > of global governance cannot be arrived at quickly and through > confrontation, and that we should be in it for the long haul. Even putting just and fair models on the table now is still a long haul struggle. Waiting may look like a stratus quoist position. > It's be a lot easier to push for revolution once reform has not > worked, if indeed it does not. > > And we should keep things in proportion and bear in mind that 99% of > the actors relying on the Internet and caring how these things are > done are probably unaware of the IGC. Even if we could reach > consensus on that there should be rapid movement toward a new grand > design, the response elsewhere could be, "IGC who?" I don't think > we're in a position to unilaterally change the world along lines that > lines that would be contentious, but we could weigh in and add weight > to calls elsewhere to get started on a more evolutionary path. Well, a civil society body's legitimacy and often even recognition comes with moral and political justification of its positions and its willingness and ability to work for it. This is a choice that IGC has to make. And if it does make the right choice, perhaps there will be less 'IGC who' questions. We are one of the premier civil society organisation must present the most moral and just models (this is done in other global gov spheres, it is only here that we have such an extra-ordinary comfort with the status quo), while also the relatively pragmatic immediate approaches towards it. That is our task, and if we are not doing that, we are not doing much of anything.. We are making ourselves even more irrelevant then we may at present be. parminder > > I'm sure we don't agree, but that's how I see it anyway… > > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 11 03:30:34 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:30:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU - summary of draft ITRs to date In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21863AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218402A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184C30@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2184D02@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21863AD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21863AD at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 03:40:04 on Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >First, can you tell me (this _is_ a rhetorical question) what is the >difference between the "safeguards" in ratifying Budapest and those in >ratifying an ITU treaty? > >Because there aren't any. They are both international treaties >formulated by intergovernmental organizations, with the exception >that ITU is more universal in its membership than the Council of Europe, >and thus more likely to fail to achieve consensus. I'm afraid I don't see it like that at all. While the Budapest Convention is a "treaty", it doesn't automatically bind anyone, not even members of the CoE, until they ratify it. And the CoE won't permit a country to ratify it until they've met various conditions pertaining to human rights in their country. (The CoE is after all, primarily a Human Rights organisation, not a policing one). The content of the Convention is in effect a "best practice", and it was achieved by a process of negotiation and consensus (back in 2001). By contrast, the ITRs will be decided ultimately by one-country-one-vote in Dubai, and members of the ITU (which is almost everyone, compared to the CoE's 47) have *already* agreed that they will be bound by the result. So there's no individual ratifications to come, and if the result is not to the US, or UK's liking, they are stuck with it. >And as for universal end-to-end email, you made me laugh out loud. If >you believe that ITU, which has no serious leverage over the world's >software developers, DNS providers or email operators, can magically >make something happen that every other vendor who has tried, including >Microsoft, has failed to do, then you attribute tremendous, almost >magical powers to the ITU. Which shows how little you know about it. The risk arises from the ITU trying to "do the impossible", and breaking things in the process. (Stopping bureaucrats from such activities is one of the main drivers for outreach from the technical community). -- 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 Mon Jun 11 03:58:47 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:28:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FD5A537.1030105@itforchange.net> On Saturday 09 June 2012 10:53 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Hi Parminder > How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving > this role out of their hands? > Hi Norbert, I largely gave my response to this question in my previous email, responding to Bill's. We can get some gleanings of the answer if we think of the same question in other contexts - why would china and russia change their international stances, or ITU reduce its efforts to gain more power, just because CS wants it to? Even a dictator needs and seeks some kind of legitimacy, which comes in various forms. On the issue of status quo of US's unilateral control/oversight over CIRs, it is the, so called, technical community and by large also the 'global' IG related civil society that has provided the legitimacy to the present unfair, unjust and undemocratic model. If these constituencies and actors withdraw this legitimacy - by putting a more democratic model on the table - and speaking and advocating about it with the same energy and intent as they do against ITU's or China/ Russia's designs - I can assure you that it would immediately begin to make a very big difference to the state of the global IG play today. At present, while ITU and a China or Russia has to be rather apologetic and even somewhat furtive in putting out their positions, US, with the legitimacy it has been able to establish in the tech community and the CS is rather blasé about putting out very patently undemocratic and unfair propositions in the global governance space. If this legitimacy is withdrawn, much can change as a result. Such soft power is all that CS has, but we should know how to exercise it effectively. In fact, if we let US know, regularly and clearly, what we think about its global IG positions, it will also give that much more legitimacy and strength to our oppositions to positions that come from the other side - say, the ITU and some developing countries. It is for this reason that I had proposed a model that at the same time as it seeks internationalisation of CIR oversight also seeks legal guarantees to safeguard the basic model of decentralised CIR and tech standards model. Presenting such a well rounded proposal/ model which does not look partisan and one-sided will help build the legitimacy, and thus the strength, of civil society and the IGC. best regards, parminder > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 11 06:32:02 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:32:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4703242b-a43a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> (message from Avri Doria on Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:41:55 -0400) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a43a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > Norbert Bollow wrote: > >Parminder wrote: > >> in when we are speaking of just the oversight model, largely the role > >> that US gov plays at the moment. > >How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving > >this role out of their hands? > > Maybe if there its ever a competent multistakeholder governance > body, they will be convinced. My question was primarily directed to Parminder, in reference to his suggestion, but I agree that creating a credible multistakeholder governance body is definitely necessary. I wouldn't expect it to be sufficient. John Curran wrote: > For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? > > 1) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as the issuer of the IANA Functions contract? > > 2) USG, via DoC/NTIA, as a signatory to the ICANN Affirmation of > Commitments? I'm referring to all remaining USG uniteral "oversight" roles which include both of the above, but also the following: 3) review of root zone changes before publication 4) power of defining the legal environment in which ICANN (including the IANA function) operates, including the power to interpret the rules and to enforce the interpretation 5) power of defining the legal environment in which the root zone management function operates, including the power to interpret the rules and to enforce the interpretation > "Oversight role" could easily refer to #1 or #2, but there is nothing in > theory that precludes another country from also signing an Affirmation of > Commitments with ICANN and participating in the required reviews. With > respect to role #1, I've attached an earlier email to this list which > outlines one potential evolutionary path towards that outcome. Looks good to me. I think that this is a reasonable strategy that could be pursued by an ECTF working group (where "ECTF" refers to that "Enhanced Cooperation Task Force" that I've been proposing). Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > I proposed on this list in an earlier mail to discuss more in detail > how the (decentralized) AoC Review process can be further > improved. The multistakeholder AoC Review mechanism is - in my eyes > - a de facto an ICANN oversight mechanism and it makes sense to look > into the details how the process (in particular with the next round > on A&T) can be further enhanced. How and where can this be productively discussed? (Is the set of members of this list really a suitable group of people for an in-depth discussion of this topic?) Parminder wrote: >On Saturday 09 June 2012 10:53 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Hi Parminder >> How do you propose to convince the US government to agree to giving >> this role out of their hands? > We can get some gleanings of the answer if we > think of the same question in other contexts - why would china and > russia change their international stances, or ITU reduce its efforts to > gain more power, just because CS wants it to? In my view, these are just as unlikely to happen just because we might demand such changes. > Even a dictator needs and seeks some kind of legitimacy, which comes in > various forms. Yes. Where no true legitimacy exists, it is supplied by propaganda. History shows that even if nobody truly believes the propaganda, this purely hypocritical, illusionary kind of legitimacy can sufficiently meet the need of dictators for "some kind of legitimacy" for a very log time. > On the issue of status quo of US's unilateral control/oversight over > CIRs, it is the, so called, technical community and by large also > the 'global' IG related civil society that has provided the > legitimacy to the present unfair, unjust and undemocratic model. If > these constituencies and actors withdraw this legitimacy - by > putting a more democratic model on the table I would assert that the model that you have put on the table is not sufficiently more fair, just and democratic, and that it is not sufficiently clear that it is not worse in other respects such as robustness against political influences that threaten technical stability, that you can expect the technical and civil society communities to rally behind your proposal. I think that we need to go forward by taking smaller steps. 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 vladar at diplomacy.edu Mon Jun 11 06:45:42 2012 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:45:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Internet governance and diplomacy" workshop in Sarajevo, Bosnia, 27-28 June Message-ID: <00d301cd47bf$5d5c2d20$18148760$@diplomacy.edu> Dear colleagues, I am pleased to share this announcement with you: DiploFoundation, in cooperation with Regional Cooperation Council and Central European Initiative, is organising a training workshop on Internet governance and diplomacy for officials and professionals from Central Europe, in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) 27-28 June. For more information and to apply, please consult: http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/training-workshop-internet-governance-and- diplomacy Feel free to share this information through your contacts in the region of Central Europe. Best! Vlada *** The latest from Diplo... Make time for learning this summer with our online courses starting in July 2012: 21st Century Diplomacy, Diplomatic Law: Privileges and Immunities, and Multilateral Diplomacy. Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses *** _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Vladimir Radunovic Internet Governance and e-Diplomacy DiploFoundation email: vladar at diplomacy.edu web: www.diplomacy.edu twitter: @vradunovic _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 11 08:34:53 2012 From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:34:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] Leaks from the good ship WCIT/ITU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1090B27A-35D4-4B65-9C99-F52588B2AC24@entropia.blog.br> Cool! Let's share a lot! Em 09/06/2012, às 03:59, michael gurstein escreveu: > http://wcitleaks.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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Jun 11 08:50:10 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:50:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU In-Reply-To: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> References: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> Message-ID: OMG! Yes, I don't want to be sitting there called "emperor". I have any intention to reach any accord with ITU. So please, please, nominate them, but don't please me! izumi 2012/6/11 Thomas Lowenhaupt : > OK, the Subject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of > performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the > Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the > half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, and not > one name has been submitted! > > The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's > future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the > traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is > approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a > responsibility to have an Appeals Team. > > See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the > Appeals Team members: > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed haq > Shahid Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > As sent on May 24... > ________________________________ > > Fellow Members of the IGF, > > With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our > responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals > Team. As per the IGC Charter, the role of the Appeals Team is: > > “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main > IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a > decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that > occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the > information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of > the appeal." > > "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal > team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator > recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will > be final on every decision reviewed.” > > “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board > will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as > defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals > team.” > > Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the > integrity of the IGC's efforts. > > This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals Team. > Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. > > Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to > submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as > to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its > decision by July 15, 2012. > > To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent > to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting > member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The > Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] > > We look forward to your participation in this important activity. > > On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur > Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) > > Asif Kabani > Hakikur Rahman > Naveed haq > Shahid Akbar > Wilson Abigaba > with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 11 11:05:11 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:05:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, Just a small nit: On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > John Curran wrote: >> For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? > ... > 3) review of root zone changes before publication Currently, outside of internal checks done by Verisign as the Root Zone Manager, there is no review of root zone changes prior to publication. DoC's role, as far as I understand it, is to verify that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed the documented policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD administrator. Once a change is authorized, the next point (outside of Verisign) where the change can be reviewed is after it hits the root servers. As mentioned in a previous note, I believe this to be a flaw in the current root zone management system. 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Mon Jun 11 13:45:07 2012 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:45:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9BFAA303-BEF1-4139-8B8C-506E736D7A2C@christopherwilkinson.eu> Hmmm ... this is not a comment on the merits or otherwise of US DoC oversight of IANA or of Verisign: Nonetheless, i do recall that the principle complaint from ccTLDs in the past was not so much about who was exercising the 'oversight' but rather the time it took and how the delays were documented. Alternative approaches to this technically formal and usually automatic function, flaws and all, need to take account of the clients' requirement for transparency and efficiency. Just a thought, CW On 11 Jun 2012, at 17:05, David Conrad wrote: > Norbert, > > Just a small nit: > > On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> John Curran wrote: >>> For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? >> ... >> 3) review of root zone changes before publication > > Currently, outside of internal checks done by Verisign as the Root > Zone Manager, there is no review of root zone changes prior to > publication. DoC's role, as far as I understand it, is to verify > that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed the documented > policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD > administrator. Once a change is authorized, the next point (outside > of Verisign) where the change can be reviewed is after it hits the > root servers. > > As mentioned in a previous note, I believe this to be a flaw in the > current root zone management system. > > Regards, > -drc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue Jun 12 05:28:16 2012 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:28:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Paper - SITIS 2012: Internet-Based Computing and Systems (IBCS) track Message-ID: <014a01cd487d$b2ac7190$180554b0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] ============================================================================ CALL FOR PAPERS Internet-Based Computing and Systems (IBCS) track at SITIS 2012 - The 8th International Conference on SIGNAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY & INTERNET BASED SYSTEMS In cooperation with IEEE Technical Committee on Multimedia Computing (pending) November 25-29, 2012, SORRENTO - Naples, Italy http://www.sitis-conf.org/ ============================================================================ The SITIS conference is dedicated to research on the technologies used to represent, share and process information in various forms, ranging from signal, image, and multimedia data to traditional structured data and semi structured data found in the web. The focus of the track on Internet Based Systems and Computing is on emerging and novel concepts, architectures and methodologies for information management. Novel architectures are being proposed to allow resource sharing and distributed processing of data with increasing complexity. Cloud computing, peer to peer computing, mobile information systems, semantic based applications, and decision support systems are a few examples of these applications and systems. The Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): Data semantics * Multiple Representation * Ontologies * Conceptual Data Modeling * Knowledge Representation and Reasoning * Metadata * Evolution and Change * Web Semantics and Semi Structured Data * Semantic Caching * Data Warehousing and Semantic * Semantics in Data Visualization * Semantic Services for Mobile Users * Applications of Semantic-Driven Approaches Web-Centric Systems * Semantic Web and Web Service * Web Services and Service Computing * Semantics of Web Services Compositions * Future Internet for Enterprise Systems * Hypermedia and Adaptation * E-Commerce and E-Learning * Data Mining Methods and Web * Machine Learning Advanced Information Systems and Applications * Spatial Modeling and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) * GIS and Sustainable Development * Environmental GIS * GIS and Remote Sensing * Urban GIS * Spatial, temporal modeling semantics Information System Interoperability * Digital Libraries * Semantic Interoperability and Semantic Mediators * Ontologies Based Systems * Contextual Reasoning in Distributed Ontologies Emergent Semantics * Context-Dependent Semantics * Contextual Reasoning in Distributed Ontologies * Ontologies Based Systems * Context-Dependent Semantics * Communication in Multi-Agents Systems * Emergent Semantic Interoperability in Large-Scale Systems * Emergent Semantics in Content Retrieval Systems Cooperative information and Distributed Systems * Information Sharing * Cloud computing for Business * Peer To Peer Computing and Applications * Knowledge and Semantic Grid * Semantics Of Peer Data Management Systems * Mobile Information Systems and Computing Multimedia and application * Image and Video Databases * Image and Video Indexing and Retrieval * Emergent Semantics in Content Retrieval Systems * Semantics and Meta Data in Multimedia Systems * Content-Based Indexing and Search * Multimedia Data Modeling and Visualization * Tools, Benchmarks, Evaluation Protocols and Standards Information security * Security Modeling and Access Control Protocol * Intrusion Avoidance, Detection, and Response * Web Security and Supporting Systems Security * Denial of Service: Attacks and Countermeasures * Intellectual Property Protection * Fundamental Services on Network and Distributed Systems * Security and Privacy for Emerging Technologies * Trust based systems ==== Submission and publication ==== The conference will include keynote addresses, tutorials, and regular and workshop sessions. SITIS'12 invites submission of high quality and original papers on the topics listed above. Papers must be up to 8 pages and follow IEEE double columns publication format. All submitted papers will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers for technical merit, originality, significance and relevance to track topics. Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings and published by IEEE Computer Society and referenced in IEEE explore and major indexes. SITIS'12 online submission system: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2012 ==== Important Dates ==== * Submission: September 03, 2012 * Review notification: September 25, 2012 * Final submission: October 07, 2012 * Author registration: October 15, 2012 ==== Program Committee ==== General Chair * Ernesto Damiani, University of Milan, Italy Program Chair * Giuseppe De Pietro, ICAR-CNR, Italy Track Chairs * Giandomenico Spezzano, ICAR-CNR, Italy * William I. Grosky, University of Michigan-Dearborn, USA Local Organizing Committee * Luigi Gallo, ICAR-CNR, Italy * Marco Anisetti, University of Milan, Italy * Valerio Bellandi, University of Milan, Italy * Fulvio Frati, University of Milan, Italy ==== Contact ==== info at sitis-conf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 05:38:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 21:38:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU In-Reply-To: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> References: <4FBFAB0A.4070604@communisphere.com> <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I would like to encourage you to submit and/or nominate names to the NomCom so that the IGC can have an Appeals Team. Please take the time to read Tom's email and its contents. Warm Regards, Sala On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > OK, the *S*ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of > performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of > the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past > the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, *and > not one name has been submitted!* > > The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the > Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than > the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is > approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a > responsibility to have an Appeals Team. > > See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to > the Appeals Team members: > > - Asif Kabani > - Hakikur Rahman > - Naveed haq > - Shahid Akbar > - Wilson Abigaba > - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > *As sent on May 24...* > ------------------------------ > > Fellow Members of the IGF, > > With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our > responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals > Team. As per the IGC Charter , the role > of the Appeals Team is: > > “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main > IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a > decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that > occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the > information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of > the appeal." > > "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal > team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator > recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will > be final on every decision reviewed.” > > “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board > will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as > defined here. Coordinators are not > qualified to be members of the appeals team.” > > Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining > the integrity of the IGC's efforts. > > This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals > Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. > > Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to > submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as > to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its > decision by July 15, 2012. > > To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be > sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom > voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. > [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] > > We look forward to your participation in this important activity. > > On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur > Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) > > > - Asif Kabani > - Hakikur Rahman > - Naveed haq > - Shahid Akbar > - Wilson Abigaba > - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Tue Jun 12 06:02:37 2012 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:02:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Paper - SITIS 2012: Signal and Image Technologies (SIT) track Message-ID: <020f01cd4882$7ef77f70$7ce67e50$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] ============================================================================ CALL FOR PAPERS Signal and Image Technologies (SIT) track at SITIS 2012 - The 8th International Conference on SIGNAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY & INTERNET BASED SYSTEMS In cooperation with IEEE Technical Committee on Multimedia Computing (pending) November 25-29, 2012, SORRENTO - Naples, Italy http://www.sitis-conf.org/ ============================================================================ The SITIS conference is dedicated to research on the technologies used to represent, share and process information in various forms, ranging from signal, image, and multimedia data to traditional structured data and semi structured data found in the web. The track "Signal & Image Technologies" (SIT) focuses on recent developments in digital signal processing and pays particular attention to evolutions in audiovisual signal processing, analysis, coding and authentication, and retrieval techniques. The Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): Image Processing and Analysis * Image filtering, Restoration, Enhancement * Image segmentation * Image acquisition, manipulation and compression * Image synthesis * Image databases * Content based image retrieval * Pattern analysis and recognition * Shape matching * Learning and classification * Colour Imaging * Multispectral processing * Stereoscopic and 3D processing * 3D Object Extraction * Surface reconstruction * Geometric algorithms * Computational geometry Signal processing * Theory and Methods * Gibbs models and MRFS * Digital Filters and Filter Banks design * Wavelets and Multirate Signal Processing * Spectral analysis * Time frequency signal analysis * Nonlinear and Multidimensional Signal Processing * Variational formulations * PDE * Radar, sonar * Antennas * Mobile Signal Processing * Fast algorithms * Real time signal processing * Signal noise control Applications * Archiving * Digital video broadcasting * Biomedical Imaging * Nuclear Xray, and magnetic resonance imaging * Tomographic imaging * Remote Sensing * Document Image Processing and Analysis * Astronomy * Geosciences and environment * Artificial intelligence applications * Neural networks applications * Fuzzy logic applications * Biometrics and Applications Image/Video Coding and Authentication * Coding standards * Image and video over networks * Error resilience * Video processing and streaming * Motion detection and estimation * Object tracking * Image sequence processing and analysis * Multimedia processing * Video streaming * Watermark Embedding and Detection * Reliable Watermark Recovery * Stochastic Aspects of Data Hiding ==== Submission and publication ==== The conference will include keynote addresses, tutorials, and regular and workshop sessions. SITIS'12 invites submission of high quality and original papers on the topics listed above. Papers must be up to 8 pages and follow IEEE double columns publication format. All submitted papers will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers for technical merit, originality, significance and relevance to track topics. Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings and published by IEEE Computer Society and referenced in IEEE explore and major indexes. SITIS'12 online submission system: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2012 ==== Important Dates ==== * Submission: September 03, 2012 * Review notification: September 25, 2012 * Final submission: October 07, 2012 * Author registration: October 15, 2012 ==== Program Committee ==== General Chair * Ernesto Damiani, University of Milan, Italy Program Chair * Giuseppe De Pietro, ICAR-CNR, Italy Track Chairs * Bruno Apolloni, University of Milan, Italy * Albert Dipanda, University of Burgundy, France Local Organizing Committee * Luigi Gallo, ICAR-CNR, Italy * Marco Anisetti, University of Milan, Italy * Valerio Bellandi, University of Milan, Italy * Fulvio Frati, University of Milan, Italy ==== Contact ==== info at sitis-conf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 12 10:53:33 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:23:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 06 June 2012 10:29 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > McTim's right on this. > > And, if I may note once more - there is a trusted human override in the inner workings of the guts of the net of nets: Meaning, the 'root server operators' are not autonamatons. > > I quote: > > the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and > >> with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) >> > Meaning, ultimately, the trusted (redundant and distributed) geeky folks some of you worry about have the responsibility to keep the whole thing up and inter-operating. As long as that remains the case - which is a design feature and not an accident - then we are all, relatively speaking of course, safe from anyone trying to take over anything. > Lee, Since you, and also David, seem to rely a lot on the argument about root servers that are under no contractual obligation 'to do anything', I must address it. The US based majority of root servers - which is all but three - may not be under any contractual obligations but they are subject to US law, and legitimate executive orders. This is the real issue, not just the involved contract law. In any condition that US law and executive power considers special - whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare related, all US based root servers will be obliged to fall in line. As for the three - or is it four - non US based root servers, firstly, they are all in US friendly countries, on whom US has great persuasive influence. In any case, the cost of non compliance to republishing the authentic root version - in terms of possible general disruptions etc - is too high for anyone to a make a reasonable assessment that they are may not fall in line. Although David says DNSSEC does not change this situation at all, from his own description of the processes involved, I see that DNSSEC implementation greatly increases the various costs of non publishing of the authoritative root file as communicated from Verisign's server. We need to look at all this against the background that US is the most active, perhaps the only, international actor that very regularly imposes unilateral sanctions on other countries which means no relationships, including not allowing its companies, and even non-profits, from providing any services to the sanctioned countries. I am quite sure that under the same law that the US gov prevents its companies, for instance, from providing software security updates to residents of Sudan, Iran and some other countries, ICANN/ IANA manager can be stopped from providing all services that it provides to the residents and organisations in these countries. At present they dont apply this law because they are cautious of how it would look to those who provide it with so much legitimacy in its CIR oversight role, but perceptions and cost-benefit analysis can change, especially in what may getasp seen as an exceptional situation by the US. The rest of the world cannot remain a hapless aspirant of continued US goodwill... This is what is unacceptable to us, outside the US. As to how much the US cares for even the international documents that it signs, It may be pertinent to note that the WSIS Declaration of Principles (repeated in Tunis agenda) speaks against unilateral measures of the kind that Sudan, Iran, Cuba etc get subject to vis a vis information society's technology affordances. In building the Information Society, States are strongly urged to take steps with a view to the avoidance of, and refrain from, any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, and that hinders the well-being of their population. Do you still think other countries can trust the US with oversight control over such a vital infrastructure as the Internet? parminder > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 12:41 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" > > Hu, > > for some reason, i cannot quote correctly. > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:00 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> >> > > > DRC > >> No, ICANN, acting unilaterally, cannot. >> >> ICANN, acting as the IANA Functions Manager under contract to the US >> Government, can at the direction of the administrators for the top-level >> domain in question _make a request_ to have that top-level domain removed. >> That request (once validated by IANA staff) is sent to the US Dept. of >> Commerce NTIA for approval to ensure that existing policies and processes >> were followed, and when approved that request is forwarded to Verisign as >> the Root Zone Manager for that TLD's entry in the root zone to be deleted. >> At that point, the modified zone file is DNSSEC-signed (by the Root Zone >> Manager with a key that is held by (handwave) the IANA Functions Manager) >> and pushed to the 13 root servers that will make the modified root zone >> available to the Internet. >> >> >> > PJS > >> All actors you mention are subject to US jurisdiction (I will come to the >> 3 >> non US root servers later) >> > I think that WIDE, RIPE and Autonomica may have different opinions than you. > > PJS > and therefore if US government wants and orders > >> something it applies to all of them. So the point is, US gov can do it. >> > did you NOT read drc statement above? I will paraphrase: > > 1. IF a ccTLD requests removal of their TLD, IANA CAN request that it > be removed. > > 2. The NTIA would validate that the removal followed policy > > 3. Request fwded to Verisign for actual editing of file > > 4. IANA must resign newzone > > 5. Publication to rootservers > > > This is a far cry from "US gov can do it." > > > > > DRC > >> The only thing DNSSEC-signing the root zone does is ensure that an attempt >> by someone who doesn't hold the root zone's private key to modify a >> response >> from a root server can be detected. >> >> >> This seems to suggest that modifications to query responses made by >> someone >> who *does* hold the root zone's private key (ie root zone manager, which >> is >> under contract of US gov, and therefore means the US gov) will not be >> detected. >> > This is not suggested at all. > > That is the problem. And what I read from your email is that due > >> to DNSSEC operation, now US gov can not only remove an entire cctld or >> gtld, >> but can modify root zone responses to specific websites level queries, >> > neither are true. > > >> which >> is more or less removing them (as we will discuss later) . Is it not so? I >> was afraid, but unsure, that something like this may now have been made >> possible. Now, from your email, I am clear about it. Thanks for it. (No >> irony intended.) >> > no, in fact, you are not at all clear as to how DNSSEC works! > > > >> >> > DRC > >> Responses from the root servers are (almost always) referrals to >> top-level >> domain name servers (that is, the root servers when asked 'what's the >> address for "foo.example.com"' respond with "don't know, but ask the name >> servers for .COM and here is a list of those name servers"). >> >> >> > PJS > >> You say 'almost always' which leaves the possibility - with an actor with >> the relevant intention, and the power of the US gov - that such a referral >> - >> 'what's the address for "foo.example.com"' - may not be directed to the >> concerned tld name server. It may simply be terminated in say, a notice by >> US custom's authority or US State Dept. Am I right. >> > No, once again, you are incorrect. The root zone only "knows" where > .com is.. It doesn't "know" > where foo.example.com is or even example.com! > > > >> >> > DRC > >> DNSSEC allows validating resolvers (typically operated by ISPs) to verify >> that no one has tried to insert bogus data in that referral. >> >> An implication of this is that if the existing processes were somehow >> subverted and the Root Zone Manager (Verisign, _not_ ICANN) were able to >> insert something inappropriate into the root zone, >> >> >> yes, that possible eventuality is 'the' problem with unilateral >> oversight, >> it is not a mere side issue..... >> >> >> the root server operators (a quarter of which are not based in the US and >> with one exception are under no contractual obligation to do anything) >> would >> be forced to make a decision: publish the "secure" root zone with the >> inappropriate data or refuse to publish the entire zone. If such a >> subversion were to take place, I suspect a majority of root server >> operators >> (yes, even many of those in the US) would choose the latter with >> consequences so unappealing as to be comparable with Mutual Assured >> Destruction doctrine. >> >> >> > PJS > >> It is here we differ, because in saying 'I suspect' you are expressing an >> opinion, which I am not at all able to agree with. I am quite sure that >> the >> three outside root server operators will go along, however unhappy they >> may >> be in doing so, because as you yourself put it, not going along with have >> catastrophic consequneces for the Internet. The website or websites that >> US >> may choose to hit >> > > I repeat, mucking with the rootzone is NOT hitting "website or > websites". The USG seemingly > can do this via other means. > > > PJS > will be of relatively much much less 'global' economic > >> and >> political consequence - though they may be of life and death importance to >> some people, groups, or country(s). Rather than interfering so drastically >> with whole of the Internet, all concerned actors will simply comply. >> > This is also conjecture or "opinion". > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Dixie at global-partners.co.uk Tue Jun 12 12:06:27 2012 From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:06:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Invitation to Internet Governance Workshop - June 19th in the European Parliament Message-ID: FYI if anybody is able to come! Best, Dixie From: SCHAAKE Marietje [mailto:marietje.schaake at europarl.europa.eu] Sent: 12 June 2012 16:30 To: SCHAAKE Marietje OFFICE Subject: Invitation to Internet Governance Workshop - June 19th in the European Parliament INVITATION "Facing Challenges to the Internet Governance Regime: A European Perspective Workshop" June 19th from 15.00 to 18.00 in room PHS5 B001 The workshop will deal with several aspects of internet governance and the way forward for Europe. The focus will be on the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in December of this year as part of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The WCIT will consider a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which can have a significant impact on the way the internet is regulated. Please RVSP to marietje.schaake-office at europarl.europa.eu Kind regards, Marietje Schaake MEP --- Background We are witnessing growing attempts by governments across the world to take greater control of the internet, and on the other hand growing unaccountable corporate power. The present internet governance regime has reached a difficult moment: in the past two years we have seen proposals from India and IBSA for large scale changes to the current regime; from Russia & China for a UN General Assembly Resolution on "information security"; proposals to change the ITU Regulations; a CSTD process to look at enhanced cooperation. All of these initiatives raise constitutional questions about how the Internet is governed on the global scale. This workshop seeks to discuss the various proposals on the table, as well the legitimate concerns about the internet governance regime at present. We aim to promote a broad multi-stakeholder discussion about what role Europe should be playing in shaping an internet governance regime in the public interest. Confirmed speakers from the following institutions and organisations: European Commission University of Zurich European Digital Rights Initiative Global Partners Council of Europe Google Internet Society (tbc) Draft agenda 15:00-15:15 - Welcome and introductions 15:15-16:00 - Brief overview of current IG regime and some of the main advantages/disadvantages. 16:00-17:00 - Overview of main proposals for changing the regime (ITU, enhanced cooperation, IBSA, Internet Code of Conduct, normative principles) 17:00-17:45 - Questions and audience discussion 17:45-18:00 - Summary and conclusions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 12 12:12:38 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:12:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Invitation to Internet Governance Workshop - June 19th in the European Parliament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E4E2430-B873-4EB8-A5FA-B86402A82B38@privaterra.org> Dixie, Unfortunately the event conflicts with the OSCE Internet Freedom conference taking place in Dublin next week. ref - www.osce.org/event/internetfreedom2012 regards Robert On 2012-06-12, at 12:06 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > FYI if anybody is able to come! > > Best, Dixie > > From: SCHAAKE Marietje [mailto:marietje.schaake at europarl.europa.eu] > Sent: 12 June 2012 16:30 > To: SCHAAKE Marietje OFFICE > Subject: Invitation to Internet Governance Workshop - June 19th in the European Parliament > > INVITATION > > "Facing Challenges to the Internet Governance Regime: A European Perspective Workshop" > > June 19th from 15.00 to 18.00 in room PHS5 B001 > > The workshop will deal with several aspects of internet governance and the way forward for Europe. The focus will be on the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in December of this year as part of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The WCIT will consider a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which can have a significant impact on the way the internet is regulated. > > Please RVSP to marietje.schaake-office at europarl.europa.eu > > Kind regards, > > Marietje Schaake MEP > > --- > > Background > We are witnessing growing attempts by governments across the world to take greater control of the internet, and on the other hand growing unaccountable corporate power. The present internet governance regime has reached a difficult moment: in the past two years we have seen proposals from India and IBSA for large scale changes to the current regime; from Russia & China for a UN General Assembly Resolution on "information security"; proposals to change the ITU Regulations; a CSTD process to look at enhanced cooperation. All of these initiatives raise constitutional questions about how the Internet is governed on the global scale. > > This workshop seeks to discuss the various proposals on the table, as well the legitimate concerns about the internet governance regime at present. We aim to promote a broad multi-stakeholder discussion about what role Europe should be playing in shaping an internet governance regime in the public interest. > > Confirmed speakers from the following institutions and organisations: > European Commission > University of Zurich > European Digital Rights Initiative > Global Partners > Council of Europe > Google > Internet Society (tbc) > > Draft agenda > 15:00-15:15 – Welcome and introductions > 15:15-16:00 – Brief overview of current IG regime and some of the main advantages/disadvantages. > 16:00–17:00 – Overview of main proposals for changing the regime (ITU, enhanced cooperation, IBSA, Internet Code of Conduct, normative principles) > 17:00-17:45 – Questions and audience discussion > 17:45-18:00 – Summary and conclusions > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 12 12:29:06 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:29:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: EuroDIG - Info letter no. 7/12 References: <008801cd47b4$7fc3dbc0$7f4b9340$@org> Message-ID: <9DD06D50-4428-4CE2-93F8-16E533A3F8C1@ella.com> Note there are lots of 1 minute speaking slots available in Plenary 7 for Eurodig available. http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2012/programme/plenary/plenary-7 http://www.eurodig.org/important/241-speaking-slot-in-plenary-7 registered remote participants can speak as well. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: > Subject: EuroDIG - Info letter no. 7/12 > Date: 11 June 2012 05:22:46 EDT > To: > > > > Information letter No. 7/12 > > > This is the last info letter prior to EuroDIG! We tried our best to organize an exciting conference for you and hope to meet your expectations. Here are some last remarks: > > 1. Pre-registration on Wednesday > 2. SIGN UP! 24 at 1 speaking slots in plenary 7 > > ***************************************************************************************** > > 1. Pre-registration on Wednesday > > All participants are invited to pre register on Wednesday 13 June 2012 between 16:00 – 18:00 at the entrance of the Stockholm City Conference Center located on Barnhusgatan 12-14. > > 2. SIGN UP! 24 at 1 speaking slots in plenary 7 > > As part of Plenary 7, 24 @ 1 minute speaker slots are being opened on a first come first served basis on the following subtopics to all participants: > > Topic 1: Are rules of behavior, security codes of conduct and principles for Internet governance a necessity or a threat to liberal Internet governance? > Topic 2: In so far as such rules and principles are necessary, how should they be established? > Topic 3: In so far as such rules and principles are necessary, what is the appropriate format and balance for such rules? > > Read more and sign up here! > > > Have a save trip and see you in Stockholm! > > The EuroDIG team > > > > If you don’t want receive this information letter in the future please send a short message to office at eurodig.org. > > > S a n d r a H o f e r i c h t e r / W o l f L u d w I g > Secretariat > > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) > > office at eurodig.org > www.eurodig.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19555 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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 12 12:51:17 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:51:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <9BFAA303-BEF1-4139-8B8C-506E736D7A2C@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <9BFAA303-BEF1-4139-8B8C-506E736D7A2C@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: Christopher, On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:45 AM, CW Mail wrote: > Nonetheless, i do recall that the principle complaint from ccTLDs in the past was not so much about who was exercising the 'oversight' but rather the time it took and how the delays were documented. Yes. Or perhaps more generally, there was significant unhappiness within the ccTLD community about how long it took for root zone requests to be processed. I believe the consensus now is that root zone request processing is "no longer the problem". > Alternative approaches to this technically formal and usually automatic function, flaws and all, need to take account of the clients' requirement for transparency and efficiency. Agreed. One of the key lessons learned during the "let's fix IANA" days was that it is hard to provide too much information regarding how requests were being processed. 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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 12 14:24:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:24:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@i tforchan ge.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 12, 2012, at 7:53 AM, parminder wrote: > In any condition that US law and executive power considers special - whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare related, all US based root servers will be obliged to fall in line. I'll admit some difficulty understanding the actions you argue the USG would be forcing root servers to comply with. Could you provide a concrete example of what you're concerned about? > Although David says DNSSEC does not change this situation at all, from his own description of the processes involved, I see that DNSSEC implementation greatly increases the various costs of non publishing of the authoritative root file as communicated from Verisign's server. I'm sorry I'm not explaining things clearly enough. Let me try it this way, completely ignoring the role the root server operators may (or may not) play since you find that unconvincing: Assume the USG forces Verisign to remove .IN from the root zone. A query for .IN will then result in a "name error" response being returned to the querying resolver (typically operated by ISPs). With DNSSEC, some cryptographic data is also returned that allows the resolver to prove (in the mathematical sense) that the holder of the root zone signing key (Verisign) agrees that the "name error" should be returned. Without DNSSEC, you still get the "name error", the resolver just can't prove that's what the holder of the zone signing key intended. So, we now have a root zone(provably, if you bother to verify the DNSSEC data) without .IN in it. Let's say you run an ISP anywhere in the world. Now, _all_ of your customers that attempt to connect to any website in the .IN domain will get "name does not exist" in their web browsers, email programs, bittorrent clients, etc. Your customers are probably not going to assume it is because the USG removed the .IN domain, rather they're more likely going to assume you screwed up somehow and call you to scream at you. After a sufficient number of calls (which, depending on the scale of your ISP, will probably be from minutes to hours), you'll most likely fix the problem for your users by getting a copy of the root zone, reinserting the .IN data into that copy, and putting that root zone on your resolvers. Since you have fixed the problem in your resolvers, the fact that the root zone is DNSSEC-signed is completely irrelevant. DNSSEC only protects the resolver's cache from getting crap data inserted into it. Your customers, by using your resolvers, trust you to return accurate data. The _vast_ majority of those users will never see DNSSEC-related information since the resolver strips that information out when responding to client (e.g., web browser) requests. For those users that actually know enough to request DNSSEC information, they will undoubtedly know enough to solve the problem the same way you did. So, the end result of the action taken by the USG is to completely remove the USG from any role in administering the root zone while at the same time generating vast amounts of (both domestic and international) outrage and destabilizing the Internet. The USG would want to do this because? > Do you still think other countries can trust the US with oversight control over such a vital infrastructure as the Internet? The part that I believe you're missing is that there actually is no control, oversight or otherwise. Because of the decentralized nature of Internet operations, the Internet only works because everyone (primarily ISPs) agrees that it should work (what Mitch Kapor termed "The Tinkerbelle Effect" at a meeting back in the early 90s). In my view, the role ICANN plays (or, perhaps more accurately, was intended to play) is to allow people to get together to agree on how a part of the Internet should work and my impression is that the USG merely tries to ensure ICANN follows its own policies and procedures to do this. Your assertions that the USG is going to go rogue and force bad things to be done to the root of the DNS ignores the fact that those bad things only have effect if everyone (primarily ISPs) all around the world agree that those bad things should occur. I am a bit skeptical this would occur. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 15:07:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:07:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I have no competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate seems to be between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone and trust us (the USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; and folks on the other side who are saying the Internet is too important to us to simply "trust you" without any guarantees, oversight or participation in whatever decision making is going on. I think that whatever the merits of the individual positions the days when the rest of the world would be content to "simply trust the USG" in a matter where, if not now, at some point in the future, the US's vital interests might be affected either in reality or as perceived through some sort of ideological lens, are long gone. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Parminder, On Jun 12, 2012, at 7:53 AM, parminder wrote: > In any condition that US law and executive power considers special - > whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare related, all US based root > servers will be obliged to fall in line. I'll admit some difficulty understanding the actions you argue the USG would be forcing root servers to comply with. Could you provide a concrete example of what you're concerned about? > Although David says DNSSEC does not change this situation at all, from > his own description of the processes involved, I see that DNSSEC > implementation greatly increases the various costs of non publishing > of the authoritative root file as communicated from Verisign's server. I'm sorry I'm not explaining things clearly enough. Let me try it this way, completely ignoring the role the root server operators may (or may not) play since you find that unconvincing: Assume the USG forces Verisign to remove .IN from the root zone. A query for .IN will then result in a "name error" response being returned to the querying resolver (typically operated by ISPs). With DNSSEC, some cryptographic data is also returned that allows the resolver to prove (in the mathematical sense) that the holder of the root zone signing key (Verisign) agrees that the "name error" should be returned. Without DNSSEC, you still get the "name error", the resolver just can't prove that's what the holder of the zone signing key intended. So, we now have a root zone(provably, if you bother to verify the DNSSEC data) without .IN in it. Let's say you run an ISP anywhere in the world. Now, _all_ of your customers that attempt to connect to any website in the .IN domain will get "name does not exist" in their web browsers, email programs, bittorrent clients, etc. Your customers are probably not going to assume it is because the USG removed the .IN domain, rather they're more likely going to assume you screwed up somehow and call you to scream at you. After a sufficient number of calls (which, depending on the scale of your ISP, will probably be from minutes to hours), you'll most likely fix the problem for your users by getting a copy of the root zone, reinserting the .IN data into that copy, and putting that root zone on your resolvers. Since you have fixed the problem in your resolvers, the fact that the root zone is DNSSEC-signed is completely irrelevant. DNSSEC only protects the resolver's cache from getting crap data inserted into it. Your customers, by using your resolvers, trust you to return accurate data. The _vast_ majority of those users will never see DNSSEC-related information since the resolver strips that information out when responding to client (e.g., web browser) requests. For those users that actually know enough to request DNSSEC information, they will undoubtedly know enough to solve the problem the same way you did. So, the end result of the action taken by the USG is to completely remove the USG from any role in administering the root zone while at the same time generating vast amounts of (both domestic and international) outrage and destabilizing the Internet. The USG would want to do this because? > Do you still think other countries can trust the US with oversight > control over such a vital infrastructure as the Internet? The part that I believe you're missing is that there actually is no control, oversight or otherwise. Because of the decentralized nature of Internet operations, the Internet only works because everyone (primarily ISPs) agrees that it should work (what Mitch Kapor termed "The Tinkerbelle Effect" at a meeting back in the early 90s). In my view, the role ICANN plays (or, perhaps more accurately, was intended to play) is to allow people to get together to agree on how a part of the Internet should work and my impression is that the USG merely tries to ensure ICANN follows its own policies and procedures to do this. Your assertions that the USG is going to go rogue and force bad things to be done to the root of the DNS ignores the fact that those bad things only have effect if everyone (primarily ISPs) all around the world agree that those bad things should occur. I am a bit skeptical this would occur. 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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 12 15:25:32 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:25:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I have no > competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate seems to be > between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone and trust us (the > USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that was your intent). A better representation would be "These aren't the droids you're looking for". Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN actually does do. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 15:33:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:33:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry David, I wasn't commenting specifically on your position (or on the more detailed discussion concerning the role of ICANN). Rather I was pointing to the issues I see in the overall discussion (of which ICANN of course is an element) concerning a possible role for the ITU/UN (or whatever) in "managing/controlling/overseeing etc.etc." the Internet which is now sprawling over several lists, multiple blogs and a widening array of venues--US Congress, CSTD, OECD, etc., etc. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Michael, On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I > have no competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate > seems to be between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone > and trust us (the > USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that was your intent). A better representation would be "These aren't the droids you're looking for". Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN actually does do. 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 apisan at unam.mx Tue Jun 12 15:50:07 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:50:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> +1 For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the USG. Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been finished, delivered, and acted upon. The Whois Review has just been published. The At Large Review has been published and delivered, and being processed. I chair the Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) and we are finishing the final report this week. In all cases a strong enactment of the multistakeholder principle has taken place. As far as I can tell, a large majority of the active participants of the Review Teams have taken very seriously not only their task in the specific Review in which they take part, but also the need to demonstrate convincingly that this scheme can work to the point that it can allay the temptation for an overlay of oversight. These veritable audits, which have to satisfy a very broad community, are far more significant now than the contract compliance checklist under the MoU ever would have been. By the way, in the SSR-RT we had to look at the root-server operators and the RSSAC in significant detail, and I can confirm (once again) the impression of them that David Conrad and John Curran have patiently laid out. So yes, there are a number of political fiction scenarios - not far from pre-existing realities - in which things can go awry with the USG in the governance of the DNS, IP address allocation policy, and Internet technical protocol parameter registries, but no, absolutely no, there is no way that the alternative is a new overlay of intergovernmental oversight. The alternative lies in focused, heuristic, ethical, knowledgeable and committed action by the Internet community and the emerging multistakeholder paradigm, as has been proven over the years. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 14:25 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Michael, On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I have no > competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate seems to be > between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone and trust us (the > USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that was your intent). A better representation would be "These aren't the droids you're looking for". Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN actually does do. 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 vanda at uol.com.br Tue Jun 12 17:29:47 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:29:47 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <02aa01cd48e2$8a858f70$9f90ae50$@uol.com.br> Totally agree with Alejandro that had the patience to explain quite detailled all points. Tks Alex -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Enviada em: terça-feira, 12 de junho de 2012 16:50 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Assunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight" +1 For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the USG. Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been finished, delivered, and acted upon. The Whois Review has just been published. The At Large Review has been published and delivered, and being processed. I chair the Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) and we are finishing the final report this week. In all cases a strong enactment of the multistakeholder principle has taken place. As far as I can tell, a large majority of the active participants of the Review Teams have taken very seriously not only their task in the specific Review in which they take part, but also the need to demonstrate convincingly that this scheme can work to the point that it can allay the temptation for an overlay of oversight. These veritable audits, which have to satisfy a very broad community, are far more significant now than the contract compliance checklist under the MoU ever would have been. By the way, in the SSR-RT we had to look at the root-server operators and the RSSAC in significant detail, and I can confirm (once again) the impression of them that David Conrad and John Curran have patiently laid out. So yes, there are a number of political fiction scenarios - not far from pre-existing realities - in which things can go awry with the USG in the governance of the DNS, IP address allocation policy, and Internet technical protocol parameter registries, but no, absolutely no, there is no way that the alternative is a new overlay of intergovernmental oversight. The alternative lies in focused, heuristic, ethical, knowledgeable and committed action by the Internet community and the emerging multistakeholder paradigm, as has been proven over the years. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 14:25 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Michael, On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I > have no competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate > seems to be between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone > and trust us (the > USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that was your intent). A better representation would be "These aren't the droids you're looking for". Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN actually does do. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 17:40:18 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:40:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal Message-ID: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> Whew, that's a relief... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet -takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 12 22:43:42 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:43:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been > counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more > processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from > "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which > operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the > USG. > > Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership > and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been [Milton L Mueller] So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC! So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity. Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Jun 12 23:08:17 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:08:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM, parminder wrote: ** > Lee, Since you, and also David, seem to rely a lot on the argument about > root servers that are under no contractual obligation 'to do anything', I > must address it. The US based majority of root servers - which is all but > three - may not be under any contractual obligations but they are subject > to US law, and legitimate executive orders. This is the real issue, not > just the involved contract law. In any condition that US law and executive > power considers special - whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare > related, all US based root servers will be obliged to fall in line. > > As for the three - or is it four - non US based root servers, firstly, > they are all in US friendly countries, on whom US has great persuasive > influence. In any case, the cost of non compliance to republishing the > authentic root version - in terms of possible general disruptions etc - is > too high for anyone to a make a reasonable assessment that they are may > not fall in line. > Here I have some trouble following the logic. The root mirrors infrastructure exists in most countries with enough bandwidth to handle requests, see . It costs the same regardless of the root they use. Thus, States or other organizations could maintain their own root, which does not have to differ from the Verisign version. However, they could screen zone transfers to make sure the contents are valid, and fix them if needed. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 12 23:23:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:23:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Welcome to all New Members and Friendly Reminder Message-ID: Dear All, For all those organising regional and national IGFs this month, we wish you well in your preparations and wish you a warm and fruitful series of Forums. We would also like to welcome all those who have recently joined the list. Please feel free to initiate discussion, debates and dialogue. If you have any questions in relation to the IGC, please feel free to look up the website and if you cannot find what you are looking for, send an email to coordinators at igcaucus.org with your request. *IGC Appeals Team* Kindly send names and/or nominations of whom you think the NomCom should consider in being on the NomCom Appeals Team. For requests for clarification in relation to the process, please send your inquiries to Thomas Lowenhaupt via toml at communisphere.com *Netiquette* * * We are certainly enjoying the free flow of exchange of perspectives and discussions.This is a kind reminder to please conserve the threads by responding to the threads so that there is no duplicity of threads. If you feel that the subject has evolved, feel free to change the subject heading in the email and create a new thread. Kind Regards -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Wed Jun 13 00:00:58 2012 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:00:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6CACBBBF-0824-497D-81E0-34B7306B83C6@difference.com.au> Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position. This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed perspective as a result). However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self- oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control. Regards David Sent from my iPad On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been >> counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more >> processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from >> "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which >> operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the >> USG. >> >> Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership >> and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been > > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 00:20:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:20:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO> Thanks very much for this clarification Alejandro. It helps me a very great deal as I think I now understand the distinction that is being drawn between inter-governmental "oversight" and what you are describing below as "Multi-stakeholder reviews" operating under "Affirmation of Commitments" which I believe is a different form/model of "governance" than I, at least, have undertstood as being discussed in the current context. I would be very interested if you (or others) could point to more detailed descriptions/analyses of this approach. As I understand this, it would seem to me to approximate to the model that I was suggesting some time ago as a possible alternative to either the status quo or inter-governmental "management" which is what I saw being developed in the context of the Open Government Partnership where the joint governmental/CS review of governmental OGP plans would take the place of what you describe as "multi-stakeholder reviews" and a combination of an initial governmental commitment to the Open Government Declaration and the individual national OG plans would be the equivalent of your "Affirmation of Commitments". I don't at the moment have the time to fully draw out the comparisons/parallels but as I mentioned in my earlier emails on this I do see some very significant benefits to Civil Society and overall in this general approach. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:50 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" +1 For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the USG. Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been finished, delivered, and acted upon. The Whois Review has just been published. The At Large Review has been published and delivered, and being processed. I chair the Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) and we are finishing the final report this week. In all cases a strong enactment of the multistakeholder principle has taken place. As far as I can tell, a large majority of the active participants of the Review Teams have taken very seriously not only their task in the specific Review in which they take part, but also the need to demonstrate convincingly that this scheme can work to the point that it can allay the temptation for an overlay of oversight. These veritable audits, which have to satisfy a very broad community, are far more significant now than the contract compliance checklist under the MoU ever would have been. By the way, in the SSR-RT we had to look at the root-server operators and the RSSAC in significant detail, and I can confirm (once again) the impression of them that David Conrad and John Curran have patiently laid out. So yes, there are a number of political fiction scenarios - not far from pre-existing realities - in which things can go awry with the USG in the governance of the DNS, IP address allocation policy, and Internet technical protocol parameter registries, but no, absolutely no, there is no way that the alternative is a new overlay of intergovernmental oversight. The alternative lies in focused, heuristic, ethical, knowledgeable and committed action by the Internet community and the emerging multistakeholder paradigm, as has been proven over the years. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 14:25 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Michael, On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:07 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Without commenting on the technical issue being discussed in which I > have no competence it seems to me as an observer here that the debate > seems to be between those who are saying let's leave well enough alone > and trust us (the > USG) not to do anything foolish to gum up the Internet works; To clarify, this isn't an accurate representation of my position (if that was your intent). A better representation would be "These aren't the droids you're looking for". Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of what ICANN actually does do. 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 apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 13 02:04:30 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:04:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6CACBBBF-0824-497D-81E0-34B7306B83C6@difference.com.au> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<6CACBBBF-0824-497D-81E0-34B7306B83C6@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483131A5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> David, thanks for the additional explanation. I'm sorry not to reply to Milton's misunderstanding directly - his email hasn't yet made it into my inbox. Where I beg to differ is in your last sentence. I think we've built - or are building - a significant foundation to start a partial sharing of those aspects you mention. It is a slow, stepwise project with long-term, uncertain goals, just like real life, right?; still preferable to the alternatives so far. To Mike Gurstein: I'll come back with some more detail about the parallels and non-parallels to the Open Government Partnership. Could you help us in one sense? have you explored what decisions are made by the OGP that impinge on any given country's resources in a binding way, by obligations that are binding to the government or to other stakeholders? 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: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 23:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position. This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed perspective as a result). However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self- oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control. Regards David Sent from my iPad On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been >> counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and more >> processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step away from >> "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review Teams which >> operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not report to the >> USG. >> >> Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN leadership >> and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency Review has been > > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 13 03:28:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:58:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchan ge.net> Message-ID: <4FD84120.2020009@itforchange.net> David, Let me respond to you in two parts. In the first, I will temporarily agree with all of your tech/ operational arguments, and in the second, through a separate email, make some comments on tech/operational issues, and also seek some clarifications. You suggest that US really cant do anything significant to the global Internet traffic, such is the way in which the global Internet is structured. So, if indeed the bearer of the oversight role (defined as the functions done in this regard by the US) can do no such potential interference or harm, why would anything change if instead of the US, an international body, duly constituted under international law (that needs to also be signed by the US as well), gets to exercise the oversight role. Especially when the same international law would guarantee the broad principles of the present model as well as lay out clear procedure to exercise the oversight function, both of which do not exist in any internationally guaranteed way at present. I have a feeling that I have said this before, but havent got a response. I suspect that you, or some others, would say that any such an international body will soon get into some monkey business and cannot be trusted. On the other hand, we, unhappy with US's unilateral control, hold that the US, whether it has done so or not till now, is likely to get into some monkey business with its oversight power. Now, lets look at a comparative picture of the two alternatives. We know that US has been planning what has been called the Internet Kill Switch bill, has sought interference with DNS system to enforce IP, enforces unilateral sanctions on other countries, and imposes sanctions on those countries who do not impose sanctions on countries that US want them to (it did so recently with regard to Iran), regularly sends killer drones across international borders with huge collateral damage, has systematically used extremely potent software viruses against foreign targets............ On the other hand, an international body carefully constituted, will be completely bound by its constitutional law, have US, EU (and other 'good' countries on board without whose consent nothing can be done), have due procedures clearly and transparently laid out (let us agree to not agree to anything less than that for such a body), have its minimal role fully defined (which cannot be changed without US and other 'good' countries agreeing), and so on.... One can take ones pick. So, the point is, if you really think that, to quote, ' there actually is no control, oversight or otherwise' why not accede to the little, inconsequential demand of non US countries to be treated equally and democratically, which kind of democratic impulse I think would be native to most of us. Why not let them all together exercise this, as per your argument, purely symbolic, non-control and non-oversight. Just to make us feel happy and equal, even if the demand may be coming out of some deep post-colonial socio-psychologies and has no material implication or worth. Why not just indulge us a bit, when there seems to be no cost in doing so. I simply fail to understand why when such an international system is suggested, some very evil and formidable demons appear all around us (look at the the ITU or even CIRP discussions), and then they suddenly completely disappear when a possible abuse of the US's oversight position is being discussed. parminder On Tuesday 12 June 2012 11:54 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Jun 12, 2012, at 7:53 AM, parminder wrote: > >> In any condition that US law and executive power considers special - whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare related, all US based root servers will be obliged to fall in line. >> > I'll admit some difficulty understanding the actions you argue the USG would be forcing root servers to comply with. Could you provide a concrete example of what you're concerned about? > > >> Although David says DNSSEC does not change this situation at all, from his own description of the processes involved, I see that DNSSEC implementation greatly increases the various costs of non publishing of the authoritative root file as communicated from Verisign's server. >> > I'm sorry I'm not explaining things clearly enough. Let me try it this way, completely ignoring the role the root server operators may (or may not) play since you find that unconvincing: > > Assume the USG forces Verisign to remove .IN from the root zone. A query for.IN will then result in a "name error" response being returned to the querying resolver (typically operated by ISPs). With DNSSEC, some cryptographic data is also returned that allows the resolver to prove (in the mathematical sense) that the holder of the root zone signing key (Verisign) agrees that the "name error" should be returned. Without DNSSEC, you still get the "name error", the resolver just can't prove that's what the holder of the zone signing key intended. > > So, we now have a root zone(provably, if you bother to verify the DNSSEC data) without .IN in it. Let's say you run an ISP anywhere in the world. Now, _all_ of your customers that attempt to connect to any website in the .IN domain will get "name does not exist" in their web browsers, email programs, bittorrent clients, etc. Your customers are probably not going to assume it is because the USG removed the .IN domain, rather they're more likely going to assume you screwed up somehow and call you to scream at you. After a sufficient number of calls (which, depending on the scale of your ISP, will probably be from minutes to hours), you'll most likely fix the problem for your users by getting a copy of the root zone, reinserting the .IN data into that copy, and putting that root zone on your resolvers. > > Since you have fixed the problem in your resolvers, the fact that the root zone is DNSSEC-signed is completely irrelevant. DNSSEC only protects the resolver's cache from getting crap data inserted into it. Your customers, by using your resolvers, trust you to return accurate data. The _vast_ majority of those users will never see DNSSEC-related information since the resolver strips that information out when responding to client (e.g., web browser) requests. For those users that actually know enough to request DNSSEC information, they will undoubtedly know enough to solve the problem the same way you did. > > So, the end result of the action taken by the USG is to completely remove the USG from any role in administering the root zone while at the same time generating vast amounts of (both domestic and international) outrage and destabilizing the Internet. The USG would want to do this because? > > >> Do you still think other countries can trust the US with oversight control over such a vital infrastructure as the Internet? >> > The part that I believe you're missing is that there actually is no control, oversight or otherwise. Because of the decentralized nature of Internet operations, the Internet only works because everyone (primarily ISPs) agrees that it should work (what Mitch Kapor termed "The Tinkerbelle Effect" at a meeting back in the early 90s). In my view, the role ICANN plays (or, perhaps more accurately, was intended to play) is to allow people to get together to agree on how a part of the Internet should work and my impression is that the USG merely tries to ensure ICANN follows its own policies and procedures to do this. Your assertions that the USG is going to go rogue and force bad things to be done to the root of the DNS ignores the fact that those bad things only have effect if everyone (primarily ISPs) all around the world agree that those bad things should occur. I am a bit skeptical this would occur. > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 13 03:35:20 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:35:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> Hi Milton On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really. Given what we've experienced and discussed endlessly within ICANN with regard to GAC's inability to meaningfully interface with the PDP, 12th hour objections to aspects of the new gTLD program, insistent channeling of IPR/LEA special interests, etc etc., I'm not sure I get what you're now advocating: 1. A "stronger" GAC that's more than advisory (as per, it seems, the ALAC proposal)? 2. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the national level? 3. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the international level, to be achieved through treaty negotiations (what fun!)? 4. A GAC that reports to or is even replaced by some UN entity? 5. A GAC that just goes back into the sleepy hibernation of years past, or goes away? I would certainly favor 2. And I'd like to see 3 pursued through an expanded, multilateralized/multistakeholderized AoC, rather than a treaty. 1 and 4 not so much, and 5's not happening. It's easy to agree that the AoC has had flaws and limitations in its first iteration. Do you think these are so integral that the model is irredeemably messed up and worse than conceivable alternatives like a treaty instrument and/or new UN body? I'm pretty far from convinced, and think we should be exploring ways of refining and expanding it to provide a new form of global community-wide mutual surveillance and accountability for a hopefully progressively more independent ICANN operating under a properly defined host country agreement etc. Care to elaborate? Cheers 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jun 13 04:25:58 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:25:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_=C2=A0NYT_=28and_MM=29_declare_the?= =?UTF-8?Q?_ITU_Internet_Takeover_Conspiracy_No_Big_Deal?= In-Reply-To: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> References: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <1509444401.14792.1339575958214.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> < < Whew, that's a relief...   OK, but a one-sided one !   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 12/06/12 23:41 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] The  NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > >Message Whew, that's a relief...    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet-takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jun 13 04:38:03 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:38:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Dear Louis   I think Parminder's fears are right, especially for those countries (and they the majority) who don't have neither the financial, nor the technical, nor the human resources to establish, to operate and to maintain/develop the "root mirror architecture" you mention in your reply.   Therefore I support a more critical approach for CS orgs on this fundamental issue of Internet governance.   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 13/06/12 05:09 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "parminder" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] "Oversight" > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM, parminder wrote: > > Lee, Since you, and also David, seem to rely a lot on the argument about root servers that are under no contractual obligation 'to do anything', I must address it. The US based majority of root servers - which is all but three -  may not be under any contractual obligations but they are subject to US law, and legitimate executive orders. This is the real issue, not just the involved contract law. In any condition that US law and executive power considers special - whether IP enforcement or security/ warfare related, all US based root servers will be obliged to fall in line. > > As for the three - or is it four - non US based root servers, firstly, they are all in US friendly countries, on whom US has great persuasive influence. In any case, the cost of non compliance to republishing the authentic root version - in terms of possible general disruptions etc - is too high for anyone to a make a reasonable assessment that they are may not  fall in line. > > Here I have some trouble following the logic. The root mirrors infrastructure exists in most countries with enough bandwidth to handle requests, see . It costs the same regardless of the root they use. Thus, States or other organizations could maintain their own root, which does not have to differ from the Verisign version. However, they could screen zone transfers to make sure the contents are valid, and fix them if needed. > > Regards > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 13 04:39:45 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:39:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD59E85.1020109@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCC8BF5.5080402@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org>,<4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC630@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2! 2B09.2070805@itforchange.net> <73241B6D-6542-4766-95C8-0F7374FBAD94! ! @uzh.ch> <4FD59E85.1020109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: H Parminder Sorry to be slow to respond, swamped, forgot. On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:30 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Bill > > Thanks for the detailed and informative analysis. A few comments inline. > > On Saturday 09 June 2012 02:38 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Parminder >> >> On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:40 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> We should give a clear call for internationalising oversight of CIR management, whereby the oversight function is shifted from US gov to an international body constituted under an international treaty limited to addressing the question of CIR oversight. >> >> I don't think it'd be possible to get consensus in the caucus on that, as evidenced by the fact that you've been saying this for years without getting a bite. But that's not the end of the story. > > What I was proposing now has two important new elements (1) oversight is treated in its narrow sense, and separated from from any framework that may seek to address larger global public policy issues (2) any treaty that establishes the internationalised status of ICANN at the same time recognises and formally legitimises the current ICANN/IETF/RIR model which thus blocks efforts at any significant encroachments on this model, something which we keep fearing, and quite justifiably so. Understood. We disagree on a treaty being the only solution. > >> >> To the best of my recollection, the caucus has on a number of occasions going back to WSIS called for internationalizing oversight, so that's nothing new. > > Any operational model that got suggested? Other than goodwill declarations by the US, which are not enough. I read the model offered by Carlos Afonso and find it quite interesting and something that can be worked on. I don't recall. As I've noted before, all the early caucus statements seem to exist scattered around on people's computers. I suppose if someone wanted to do a deep dive into the governance and plenary list archives attachments could be pulled together and added to the website, but who's going to spend the time…Adam had a site during WSIS that had some of them, not sure these made it on the new site. > >> We also encouraged, in PrepCom 3 September 2005, the USG to make a unilateral declaration that it would not attempt to monkey with the root zone file, e.g. in cases where the US is in conflict with some country. > > Useful but hardly enough. Other countries, and yes, it includes its people, want legal guarantees, not goodwill declarations. Understand your view, but would caveat that it's actually unclear what the topography is, which 'countries' really want what. > As you can see US with its insistence on kind of directly taking change of the security function around the root is increasing rather than decreasing its control. In the circumstances, it is rather hypocritical to expect other countries to reduce their corresponding concerns vis a vis the root. I'm not sure I read what's going on in exactly the way you do. Either way, we should recognize these are dynamic not static relationships and that most of the evolution among governments takes place outside our view. > >> As you might imagine, that would have been a difficult stance for the representatives to run up the food chain in the Bush administration. It would be interesting to explore whether such a declaration could be feasible if there's a second Obama administration, e.g. in the context of an expanded Affirmation of Commitments with buy in beyond the governments and other actors actively participating in ICANN. > > As I said in an earlier email, I dont quite well 'understand'(not that I dont know of) Affirmation of Commitments. A genuine agreements should have reciprocal commitments and signature of all the involved parties. Unilateral commitments, and that is what the AoC model is, is not sufficient. I think this is an unduly limiting reading of the AoC. Yes the US still has a special role viz ICANN which I'd be happy to see evolve and eventually wither, but there is also accountability to/"oversight" by the broader community within ICANN. To me the question is whether that can be strengthened and broadened further before/so that the US piece recedes. > I find it as a kind of new term, and a new politico-legal fiction, that is based on recognising trusteeship by one or two parties for the rest of the world. I dont find such arrangements democratic, and also unacceptable on various other counts. BTW, when you mention 'buy-in' of other governments and other actors, what does such a 'buy in' mean? Just accepting and becoming a part of a carefully designed arrangement of, by and for the US? Needn't be, they could participate fully in its expansion/evolution. >> >> A problem arose back in WSIS as to the meaning of internationalization (or as many said, globalization, as the former can be read as between governments). And it's still here today. There's a chunk of the caucus that sees the preferred globalization as a truly independent ICANN, perhaps vested with IANA function, > > By all evidence the US has been tightening rather than loosening its hold over the IANA function, and that you know is the real issue that bothers non US actors. Until there's somewhere better for it to go it's tight, but in the meanwhile in operational terms actually fairly light, as David has explained. > >> perhaps with a host country agreement---if I'm not mistaken one ICANN strategy review on this highlighted Switzerland and Belgium as the most viable locations. Personally, I think this would be politically easier to push through the rest if the atoms stayed in the US, but whatever. >> >> I also think, as per points Milton and David have made, that any transition would have to evolutionary, > > I see no real evolution towards internationalisation, but rather evidence of greater centralisation, on the crucial IANA function, and also with increased securitisation of the Internet. Securitization is rampant and highly distributed, and somewhat separable from IANA. > >> with a campaign of effective persuasion yielding serious buy in from a US administration that'd have to be willing to go to the Congress and all the heavy duty government agencies, private sector groups, and noncommercial actors who'd be skittish about change and make the case for why this should be done. It would be a battle, and political capital would have to be expended. The administration would be vilified on the political right and have to tough it out. And of course, if Obama loses, this becomes an even more distant possibility. > > This practical question of why a 'bad actor' would do what we want it to do is rather more general.... why would a china or russia change their international positions that serve the existing regimes, why would ITU not want more power.... Beyond a point this doesnt effect our, as in CS's, ethical positions, and the directions in which it seeks change. Not sure I'd conflate these > >> >> The model you propose is obviously starkly different. Rather than making ICANN fully independent and responsible to the global community through a revamped and expanded AoC, you want a UN negotiation that would yield an oversight treaty (among governments, presumably with full SG input but not equality) in which ICANN accountability would not be via an AoC but rather to some new body that in all likelihood would be populated by government reps not actively involved in ICANN affairs, > > We can ensure that this is not so, in a manner perhaps similar to how global techical standards bodies dont get populated by gov reps, but by appropriately informed people..... and as i said, we can keep an appropriate model of national/ regional selections that does involve a larger local constituency then just an ad hoc gov appointment.... we can put general directions that i am sure most countries will largely observe. This does strain the westphalian model but that is the idea. I'm not sure how you'd ensure that governments send the right people with the right mandates. Would you ban them from sending mission staff who are generalists, a la CSTD, and require only only home office experts who've formulated positions through truly democratic domestic procedures? > >> and with SGs in some sort of undefined role (I remain unconvinced any treaty-based system is going to treat SGs as peers with equal input, which is problematic to many). > > I am always happy to hear what kind of 'equal treatment' model do you really want. And what model of stakeholder rep selection, the two issues being related. (and whether such a model for just oversight function also extends to general Carlos suggested one for the international level, and also CGI.Br is a model to look at. So, do we have a model to propose. Lets not think of whether govs will agree or not. Lets place the model on the table and say this is what we are ready to go with. It is important to put forward the oversight model that is ethical and our best option to be relevant to the global discussions. Discussions and negotiations start from there. Not to do so is to legitimise the status quo. We just can't agree on equal treatment, since you don't think the private sector should be involved in setting the rules it lives by. I'd like to think the ICANN model could be built upon by strengthening other parties and undertaking capture-reducing measures. > >> And this implies not an evolutionary process where actors in the US come to a new understanding that the USG link can be severed without risking anything to security stability etc, > > There is limit to which the international community can be asked to closely follow and cater to understanding and preference of various actors in the US. No, civil society needs to speak against such an arrangement. Lets have the guts to say that. I prefer to follow political systems that I have participation in. Will we offer a similar analysis of why things are as they are in China - after all there too there are a variety of interests, and also some very legitimate ones... and there too people speak of evolutionary changes..... do we have sympathy with such positions, or do we say, no, this is wrong and wont work, and we are against it. We need to speak up in the same manner about what is wrong with US's stance. I understand your frustration but think it's a reality to be dealt with. The same would be true if oversight rested in another country that had massive institutional development and financial commitments built on the current system. > >> but rather a sort of confrontational NEIO-style negotiation in which the international community rises up en masse and tells the US it must let go, now. > > same analysis can be made about China's and Russia's international stances.. why dont we get more 'understanding'. Why dont we get a little less 'confrontational' about there stances, and well, also about ITU.... why such differential treatment. Because their proposals are utterly appalling and light years worse for an open internet than anything even the most fervid corporate lobbyists in the US have ever proposed, at least to me. > >> I don't see that working a) within the US, where everyone's back would get up a la WCIT, or b) in the international coalitions that would have to shape said treaty, because there's no evidence that the international community is en masse as unhappy as you are. > > Many many more are very unhappy then you seem to realise. Most of the global IG civil society space has been somewhat curiously constructed within structural forms and constraints that seem to blind it to this very wide spread unhappiness. Well, so here's an interesting point where I think you could really help out the discussion. Your positions are generally predicated on the notion that there is this vast majority of countries/governments that are just seething with anger about US oversight of the root, IANA, ICANN. I go to a lot of the same meetings as you (IGF, CSTD) and some you do not (ICANN) where there are also governments present. And I have to admit, who is really seething and adamantly committed to a UN-based alternative is not always so clear. Russia, China, South Africa, Iran, some of the CIS and Arab countries want intergovernmental control. India and Brazil have their issues, but have more democratic and multistakeholder models in mind. Who else? Africa, Asia, and Latin America seem to offer a rather mixed bag of preferences and perspectives. So: could you perhaps provide a topology of pissed-offness that we could discuss, in order to get a better handle on who wants what and hence how urgent we think this is? > > (more comments below) > >> David gave away the dirty little secret the other day, >> snip > >> I suspect many of us have had such conversations. So I'm very hard pressed to see OECD governments backing such a move, > > On the contrary, I think non US OECD governments will immediately agree to an international oversight board/ body, of course with all the due safeguards which I have been talking about. They've not said this publicly. Which OECD countries do you think would prefer UN oversight of ICANN, IANA, the root? > >> and the same may true for many developing and transitional countries who either are reasonably satisfied that stuff works, > > No, none is satisfied. Almost all countires given the option between the present system and an international oversight body, with due safeguards, will immediately go for the latter. I have not the slightest doubt about this. None, full stop? ALL developing and transitional countries—including all those involved regionally in their RIRs and participating in the GAC---agree with you? I admire your lack of doubts, but on what empirically identifiable sources is it based? Please be as specific as possible, as it seems really foundational to the discussion. Citing G77 & China proclamations doesn't suffice, since as you know there are coalitional dynamics there that twist things. I've had government reps tell me yes we are in G77 and didn't rock the boat on that statement but we don't really agree with it or intend to act on it... > >> are tied into complex supportive relations with the US, or just don't care all the much either way, etc. I just don't see the scenario in which you get a clear and remotely consensual mandate though a cosmic UN battle in which governments' preferences follow a highly variable geometry and most well organized SGs would be opposed. > > If we look strictly and only at narrow oversight issue, agreement will be possible. That way no international agreement is easy. Do you think climate change negotiations are easy; but doesnt stop people to seek them, no. Sure people seek and attend them. Then they go home empty handed, and a few (Europe, a few US state & local governments, etc) try to do stuff. Not a model I'd recommend for GIG. >> >> But the two paths need not be mutually exclusive. It's not inconceivable that over some years we move on the first approach and see if it works. It it manifestly fails to meet global public interest criteria and satisfy enough governments and SGs, the question of establishing a separate UN thing to fix something that is indeed broken could then get a much more serious hearing. > > Neither do I see any reform happening, nor is the present arrangement acceptable at the level of democratic principle (and that is not changing). For countries worried about security aspects (as US itself is) what is sought to be prepared for is the 'worst case scenario'. (as we all do for our security, we dont make arrangements for security of our house based just on the empirical premise that no one may have ever earlier burgled our house). >> >> So my suggestion is to recognize that big changes in the architecture of global governance cannot be arrived at quickly and through confrontation, and that we should be in it for the long haul. > > Even putting just and fair models on the table now is still a long haul struggle. Waiting may look like a stratus quoist position. I'm for putting models on the table. But still, any change that may eventually come will be evolutionary, and will require buy in at the domestic level in the countries where change would really bite. That's natural. It'd be delusional to think there will be some big meta-negotiation in the UN that yields divided votes and strong disagreement and yet the US and others who don't agree will go home and tell everyone, well folks, we lost, now we have to change everything even if we don't want to in order to suite [your list of the deeply aggrieved]. > >> It's be a lot easier to push for revolution once reform has not worked, if indeed it does not. >> >> And we should keep things in proportion and bear in mind that 99% of the actors relying on the Internet and caring how these things are done are probably unaware of the IGC. Even if we could reach consensus on that there should be rapid movement toward a new grand design, the response elsewhere could be, "IGC who?" I don't think we're in a position to unilaterally change the world along lines that lines that would be contentious, but we could weigh in and add weight to calls elsewhere to get started on a more evolutionary path. > > Well, a civil society body's legitimacy and often even recognition comes with moral and political justification of its positions and its willingness and ability to work for it. This is a choice that IGC has to make. And if it does make the right choice, perhaps there will be less 'IGC who' questions. We are one of the premier civil society organisation must present the most moral and just models (this is done in other global gov spheres, it is only here that we have such an extra-ordinary comfort with the status quo), while also the relatively pragmatic immediate approaches towards it. That is our task, and if we are not doing that, we are not doing much of anything.. We are making ourselves even more irrelevant then we may at present be. Again, we can agree to disagree on what kinds of advocacy positions would give the caucus increased credibility and visibility. 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 Wed Jun 13 04:42:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:42:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?The_=A0NYT_=28and_MM=29_declare_t?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?he_ITU_Internet_Takeover_Conspiracy_No_Big_Deal?= In-Reply-To: <1509444401.14792.1339575958214.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> References: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> <1509444401.14792.1339575958214.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Message-ID: It's silly season. One misconstrued meme to replace another misconstrued meme. There will be more, December's a ways off… BD On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > < > < Whew, that's a relief... > > OK, but a one-sided one ! > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 12/06/12 23:41 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > > > >Message > Whew, that's a relief... > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet-takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jun 13 05:58:31 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:58:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?The_=C2=A0NYT_=28and_MM=29_declare_the?= =?UTF-8?Q?_ITU_Internet_Takeover_Conspiracy_No_Big_Deal?= In-Reply-To: References: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> <1509444401.14792.1339575958214.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Message-ID: <1533111686.22628.1339581511756.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Thanks Bill   that's a relief ... for me :-))   Best Jean-Louis > Message du 13/06/12 10:42 > De : "William Drake" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] The  NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > >It's silly season.  One misconstrued meme to replace another misconstrued meme.   There will be more, December's a ways off… > BD >   > On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: < > < Whew, that's a relief...   > OK, but a one-sided one !   > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 12/06/12 23:41 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] The  NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > > > >Message Whew, that's a relief...    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet-takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 13 07:07:13 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:07:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour Message-ID: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> For those interested in new gTLD, a couple thousand apps for new strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/reveal-day-video-13jun12-en.htm *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 13 07:29:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:59:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> Hi All Good that there is a discussion on affirmation of commitments (AoC). I had earlier wanted to respond to Wolfgang's call to discuss this issue. My biggest problem with the AoC is that it is a trusteeship model of governance and not a democratic one. Why cant the AoC be signed by all countries, why only the US? (A larger political context is: In many ways, the US is emerging as the political centre for a new global middle class which is, to that extent, getting more and more distanced from their more disadvantaged compatriots. This global middle class is unhappy with their national political structures - ostensibly for good reasons like corruption etc - but also because political systems tend towards redistributive activities. A US centred global image and ascendant ideology of social darwinism, of so called ' merit' and privilege, is what appeals to them... I will cut this analysis short, but enough to say that in these circumstances, non-democratic trusteeship based US centric governance models appeal to this class. Correspondingly, I am even more opposed to them beyond their simple un-democratic-ness.) My second problem is; AoC does not include the crucial IANA function, in terms of which there seems to an increasingly greater desire to micro manage by the US gov then ever before (thus there is not even an evolutionary internationalisation). So starting an AoC discussion when the real big issue for most countries is the IANA part may really be a distraction. The third problem is; I think every technical body needs some kind of political oversight at a higher level. (I think Milton agrees with this, although he thinks that the US law is the best form of political oversight). I will like to ask Bill and others, if they remember that NCUC has at numerous occasions said that ICANN should stick to its narrow technical mandate and not get into public policy considerations? Now, with an ICANN only responsible to itself, are they suggesting that it (1) also decides and forms the public policy framework that informs its work, if only FoE, competition law, IP etc and (2) also acts as the appeal body unto itself on any alleged public policy violations. In short, are they now suggesting that ICANN exceeds its technical mandate, which I understand it has always professed for itself? If the technical mandate of ICANN has to grow towards public policy issues, its whole structure developed in accordance with its narrow technical mandate may have to be revisited. As for the review committees being the oversight mechanism, it really strains the concept of oversight. These are very nebulous structures with unclear role and authority. Interestingly, in the present discussion on this thread, two members of the review committees (Alex and David) actually completely differed on whether the review committees report to GAC or they do not. This is a bit strange for any kind of effectual arrangement. They also completely differ whether the review structure has any impact on 'weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control', which issue is the biggest problem. looking at the membership structure, one can see that the review structure carries forward the very problematic tendency of inbreeding and strong in-group loyalty that for me is perhaps the biggest issue with the ICANN system. Something which quite unabashedly, and in a storngly positive sense, gets called as the icann community... Almost all members of review structures are those closely associated with the 'ICANN system'. To try an analogy, would one appreciate something like a environment regulators community, and, further, have its structures reviewed by those closely involved with environment regulation, as proud members of such a community. Looking at the membership of one review committee one sees two vacancies caused by people who have, in the meantime, joined ICANN !! What extra-ordinary example of good governance systems. Although review is a subsidiary task to oversight, and not oversight, if one has to be done, it has to be done largely by informed and capable outsiders. Why does the ICANN community completely distrusts that a committee of, say, a few respected and informed newspaper editors, some renowned global media specialists etc would simply get together and sabotage the nicely done up ICANN system. This deep distrust of outsiders itself suggests how much must be wrong and unjustifiable with the system. parminder On Wednesday 13 June 2012 01:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Milton > > On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You >> invoke the GAC! >> >> So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make >> ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to >> make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that >> exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is >> composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. >> >> The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, >> its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its >> members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected >> entity. >> >> Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the >> Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their >> mill, really. > > Given what we've experienced and discussed endlessly within ICANN with > regard to GAC's inability to meaningfully interface with the PDP, 12th > hour objections to aspects of the new gTLD program, insistent > channeling of IPR/LEA special interests, etc etc., I'm not sure I get > what you're now advocating: > > 1. A "stronger" GAC that's more than advisory (as per, it seems, the > ALAC proposal)? > 2. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of > greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the national level? > 3. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of > greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the > international level, to be achieved through treaty negotiations (what > fun!)? > 4. A GAC that reports to or is even replaced by some UN entity? > 5. A GAC that just goes back into the sleepy hibernation of years > past, or goes away? > > I would certainly favor 2. And I'd like to see 3 pursued through an > expanded, multilateralized/multistakeholderized AoC, rather than a > treaty. 1 and 4 not so much, and 5's not happening. > > It's easy to agree that the AoC has had flaws and limitations in its > first iteration. Do you think these are so integral that the model is > irredeemably messed up and worse than conceivable alternatives like a > treaty instrument and/or new UN body? I'm pretty far from convinced, > and think we should be exploring ways of refining and expanding it to > provide a new form of global community-wide mutual surveillance and > accountability for a hopefully progressively more independent ICANN > operating under a properly defined host country agreement etc. > > Care to elaborate? > > Cheers > > 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 Wed Jun 13 08:22:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:22:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en ICANN's numbers a bit revealing and arguably sad. Quoting the 1 pg overview: 1930 applications, after refunds, for new generic top-level domains. 1846 of those are “standard” applications. 84 are designated as “community-based”. Of the 1930, 66 have designated themselves as geographic name applications. 116 applications are Internationalized Domain Names, or IDNs, using non-Latin scripts. Just three applicants seek support through ICANN’s Applicant Support Program [that CS fought to get established.] Applications from 60 countries. Using ICANN’s definitions of the world’s regions: 911 applications came from North America. 675 from Europe. 303 applications are from the Asia-Pacific region. 24 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. 17 from Africa. Some domain names have been applied for by more than one applicant. There are 230 domain names for which at least two applications were submitted, involving a total of 751 applications. On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:07 PM, William Drake wrote: > For those interested in new gTLD, a couple thousand apps for new strings > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/reveal-day-video-13jun12-en.htm > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Jun 13 08:37:35 2012 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:37:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> Well, it looks like a wholesale attempt to privatise hundreds of generic words in the English language. CW On 13 Jun 2012, at 14:22, William Drake wrote: > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en > > ICANN's numbers a bit revealing and arguably sad. Quoting the 1 pg > overview: > > > 1930 applications, after refunds, for new generic top-level domains. > 1846 of those are “standard” applications. 84 are designated as > “community-based”. > > Of the 1930, 66 have designated themselves as geographic name > applications. > 116 applications are Internationalized Domain Names, or IDNs, using > non-Latin scripts. > > Just three applicants seek support through ICANN’s Applicant Support > Program [that CS fought to get established.] > > Applications from 60 countries. Using ICANN’s definitions of the > world’s regions: > > 911 applications came from North America. > 675 from Europe. > 303 applications are from the Asia-Pacific region. > 24 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. > 17 from Africa. > > Some domain names have been applied for by more than one applicant. > There are 230 domain names for which at least two applications were > submitted, involving a total of 751 applications. > > > > On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:07 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> For those interested in new gTLD, a couple thousand apps for new >> strings >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/reveal-day-video-13jun12-en.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 13 09:01:06 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:01:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <9847559E-FFDD-4B6A-A80D-74A600DC5820@uzh.ch> Not to worry Chris, the fun is distributed…there's a Chinese application for 'Public Interest', the word 'Arab' could belong to the League of Arab States, etc.. On Jun 13, 2012, at 2:37 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Well, it looks like a wholesale attempt to privatise hundreds of generic words in the English language. > > CW > > > On 13 Jun 2012, at 14:22, William Drake wrote: > >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en >> >> ICANN's numbers a bit revealing and arguably sad. Quoting the 1 pg overview: >> >> >> 1930 applications, after refunds, for new generic top-level domains. >> 1846 of those are “standard” applications. 84 are designated as “community-based”. >> >> Of the 1930, 66 have designated themselves as geographic name applications. >> 116 applications are Internationalized Domain Names, or IDNs, using non-Latin scripts. >> >> Just three applicants seek support through ICANN’s Applicant Support Program [that CS fought to get established.] >> >> Applications from 60 countries. Using ICANN’s definitions of the world’s regions: >> >> 911 applications came from North America. >> 675 from Europe. >> 303 applications are from the Asia-Pacific region. >> 24 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. >> 17 from Africa. >> >> Some domain names have been applied for by more than one applicant. There are 230 domain names for which at least two applications were submitted, involving a total of 751 applications. >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:07 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> For those interested in new gTLD, a couple thousand apps for new strings >>> >>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/reveal-day-video-13jun12-en.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jun 13 09:12:53 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:12:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal In-Reply-To: <1533111686.22628.1339581511756.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> References: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> <1509444401.14792.1339575958214.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> <1533111686.22628.1339581511756.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Message-ID: At last. I wonder if this information will gain as much reverberation as the conspiracy ones. Sérgio 2012/6/13 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Thanks Bill > > > > that's a relief ... for me :-)) > > > > Best > > Jean-Louis > > > > > > Message du 13/06/12 10:42 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet > Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > > > > >It's silly season. One misconstrued meme to replace another misconstrued > meme. There will be more, December's a ways off… > > > > BD > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > < > > > < Whew, that's a relief... > > > > OK, but a one-sided one ! > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 12/06/12 23:41 > > > De : "michael gurstein" > > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Copie à : > > > Objet : [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet > Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal > > > > > >Message > > Whew, that's a relief... > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet-takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 13 09:35:08 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:35:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from David Conrad on Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:05:11 -0700) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <503577C9-7763-47A2-A2C6-B0C543BE70D7@istaff.org> <20120604183035.AABC5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > Just a small nit: > > On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > John Curran wrote: > >> For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? > > ... > > 3) review of root zone changes before publication > > Currently, outside of internal checks done by Verisign as the Root > Zone Manager, there is no review of root zone changes prior to > publication. DoC's role, as far as I understand it, is to verify > that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed the documented > policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD > administrator. Once a change is authorized, the next point (outside > of Verisign) where the change can be reviewed is after it hits the > root servers. David's nit is of course well justified in that I was indeed imprecise there -- probably because I'm a bit of a "doubting Thomas" in regard to the assertion that DoC would routinely, for every root zone change request, "verify that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed the documented policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD administrator" -- it will take some serious evidence to convince me that that role description isn't pure propaganda and not just a facade for something that is in reality intended to be pure international power politics. (These doubts are quite independent of the questions about whether such an intention results in effective power, and whether or not the resulting situation should be considered to be a serious problem from the perspectives of people outside the US and their governments.) > As mentioned in a previous note, I believe this to be a flaw in the > current root zone management system. Since technical correctness of the resulting zone data is easier to double-check than procedural correctness, and since I would expect unintended honest errors on the technical level to likely occur more frequently than any malicious subversion of the documented policies and processes for handling requests from TLD administrators, I agree that there seems to be some kind of flaw here. In a later posting, David Conrad wrote in response to a posting of Parminder: > Assume the USG forces Verisign to remove .IN from the root zone. A > query for .IN will then result in a "name error" response > being returned to the querying resolver (typically operated by > ISPs). With DNSSEC, some cryptographic data is also returned that > allows the resolver to prove (in the mathematical sense) that the > holder of the root zone signing key (Verisign) agrees that the "name > error" should be returned. Without DNSSEC, you still get the "name > error", the resolver just can't prove that's what the holder of the > zone signing key intended. > > So, we now have a root zone(provably, if you bother to verify the > DNSSEC data) without .IN in it. Let's say you run an ISP anywhere > in the world. Now, _all_ of your customers that attempt to connect > to any website in the .IN domain will get "name does not exist" in > their web browsers, email programs, bittorrent clients, etc. Your > customers are probably not going to assume it is because the USG > removed the .IN domain, rather they're more likely going to assume > you screwed up somehow and call you to scream at you. After a > sufficient number of calls (which, depending on the scale of your > ISP, will probably be from minutes to hours), you'll most likely fix > the problem for your users by getting a copy of the root zone, > reinserting the .IN data into that copy, and putting that root zone > on your resolvers. I agree that customers of ISPs in India would indeed assume that their ISPs have screwed up, and get their ISPs to change their resolver config in a way that makes them independent of all root servers which fail to carry the .IN zone. The situation may well be different outside India. I don't see a lot of references to .IN domains here in Switzerland. Most people and companies in India that I have had contact with seem to use .COM, .NET and .ORG domain names rather than .IN, and it'll be a lot less obvious to people that it is *their* ISP who should fix the India domain name issue for them. And if it doesn't concern India but a smaller and economically less important country, any pressure on most ISPs outside the country from their customers will be much weaker still. But anyway I don't think that "the US might want a ccTLD to suddenly disappear" is the most appropriate threat model here. I think we should rather discuss scenarios with some kind of slippery slope, like e.g. the following: Suppose that as a first step, the US would demand that all domain names which are used to host clear instances of child pornography (sexual abuse of young children which is filmed or photographed with intentions of criminal enrichment) must be deleted from DNS within 24 hours of receipt of a notification from an US government agency. If a TLD registry outside the US doesn't agree, maybe the US government would demand a root zone change by means of which DNS queries for that TLD are sent to nameservers that provide a filtered view of that TLD. Besides the child pornography sites, all other domains of that TLD would still work. There would not be a big public outcry because hardly anyone wants to destroy their reputation by taking the side of child pornography sites. As a second step, the same principle might get applied to sites of Islamic extremists who promote violence. Some people would protest, but in most countries, most ISPs would probably rather disappoint some potential or actual customers than risk having to defend themselves in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law against the accusations of failing to comply with the laws and of supporting terrorism. It would probably continue to go downhill from there. All kinds of ideas are dangerous and threatening to some kinds of politicians: Some would feel threatened in business interests tied to the military-industrial complex if any of the groups that advocate non-violence and anti-militarism achieves great influence. Some would feel threatened if one of the groups that advocate holiness in sexual purity and honesty achieves great influence and tells people not to vote for politicans who don't live according to these principles. Maybe I am a bit paranoid here, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that in such situations, rabble-rousers might react with racist, pro-violence slogans to the websites of such groups, and some of those who are in power might take that as justification to declare all kinds of strongly moral religious statements to be too provocative to be allowed on the Internet... In the above, the references to the US are mainly because it happens to be the US that appears to have some relevant power. I wouldn't view "let's give the role of the US to the UN" to be in any way an improvement with regard to this kind of concerns. The fact that the UN does some good work in regard to the promotion and protection of human rights, and also promotes itself in the name of human rights, has not stopped some UN agencies such as WIPO from putting human rights rather low on their scale of actual priorities. So I would suggest that what needs to be done is to work towards an oversight model that is designed to be as robust as possible against risks of "slippery slope" scenarios such as the one described above. The existing international human rights law is a good starting point IMO. I would say what is primarily missing right now is a global multistakeholder process to interpret this practically in the Internet governance context, in a way that results in concrete recommendations for feasible and effective governmental actions. 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 drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 13 09:52:41 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:52:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@i tforchan ge.net> <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Message-ID: <6E863004-CB5D-4FEC-8BF1-78FBA68C8280@virtualized.org> Jean-Louis, On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > I think Parminder's fears are right, especially for those countries (and they the majority) who don't have neither the financial, nor the technical, nor the human resources to establish, to operate and to maintain/develop the "root mirror architecture" you mention in your reply. > The cost of deploying an anycast root instance of at least one root server is: - About US$3000 or so for the hardware - A rack unit of rackspace, an ethernet connection with unhindered Internet connectivity, and power for the hardware - Sufficient technical expertise to allow the hardware to announce itself to the routing system The cost for mirroring the root zone in an ISP's caching server is: - Sufficient technical expertise to configure a resolver to automatically mirror the root zone -- or -- - Sufficient technical expertise to copy the root zone and install it by hand. Pretty much any full-service ISP anywhere in the world can meet either of these requirements. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 13 10:18:34 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:18:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] The NYT (and MM) declare the ITU Internet Takeover Conspiracy No Big Deal In-Reply-To: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> References: <8164F75EF9814E6AA90C9CC47C4882ED@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4FD8A13A.9050005@cafonso.ca> Yes, with a single op-ed page in the New York Times certain proeminent persons have the capacity of scaring the socks off of scores of people... :) --c.a. On 06/12/2012 06:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whew, that's a relief... > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/technology/debunking-rumors-of-an-internet-takeover.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 13 12:34:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:34:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" Message-ID: <05FE6967362141318604B85EAB874953@UserVAIO> Alejandro, If I understand you correctly the answer is that the decisions (or rather OGP commitments) are made by national governments in some form of consultation with civil society with respect to Open Government Data. These are formal and public commitments generally involving some expenditure of public resources (for the management of the government data for example). While the commitments don't I think, have the force of law (i.e. are not "binding") they do have the force of public relations and peer group pressure in that they are publicly made at the national and global partnership level and to national (and global) civil society--participation by civil society in these processes is one of the terms of the accedance to the global OGP. Also, and quite importantly, these commitments are understood to have been made in a context where there will be a form of public auditing by civil society of adherence to these commitments at both the national and global levels. Mike -----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 13, 2012 2:05 AM To: David Cake Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" ... To Mike Gurstein: I'll come back with some more detail about the parallels and non-parallels to the Open Government Partnership. Could you help us in one sense? have you explored what decisions are made by the OGP that impinge on any given country's resources in a binding way, by obligations that are binding to the government or to other stakeholders? 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: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 23:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position. This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed perspective as a result). However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self- oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control. Regards David Sent from my iPad On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been >> counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and >> more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step >> away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review >> Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not >> report to the USG. >> >> Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN >> leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency >> Review has been > > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You > invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make > ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to > make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that > exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed > of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, > its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its > members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected > entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the > Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their > mill, really. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 12:43:24 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications Message-ID: <1339605804.25805.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I hope you will be interested about next step on the Internet Highway Construction: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en http://newgtlds-cloudfront.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en.pdf Thanks Imran -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 13 16:17:20 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:17:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications In-Reply-To: <1339605804.25805.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Highway Construction? Looks like a muddle of laneways to me > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > Reply-To: , Imran Ahmed Shah > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT) > To: > Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications > > > I hope you will be interested about next step on the Internet Highway > Construction: > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200ut > c-13jun12-en > > > http://newgtlds-cloudfront.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200ut > c-13jun12-en.pdf > > Thanks > > Imran > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Jun 13 17:44:35 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications Message-ID: <1339623875.74330.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Yes I called it highway as its still in development phase, as soon as the different resorts are developed and introduced on different layers, everyone will have opportunity to reserve the resort for a period of his choice according to his affordability. So, I refer it as a super highway on the Internet Clouds, not as an network infrastructure backbone. Thanks for your query. Imran ------------------------------ On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 01:17 PKT Ian Peter wrote: >Highway Construction? > >Looks like a muddle of laneways to me > > > > >> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >> Reply-To: , Imran Ahmed Shah >> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT) >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications >> >> >> I hope you will be interested about next step on the Internet Highway >> Construction: >> >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200ut >> c-13jun12-en >> >> >> http://newgtlds-cloudfront.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200ut >> c-13jun12-en.pdf >> >> Thanks >> >> Imran >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 13 20:37:10 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 02:37:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD217F2A8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FCA0F9A.7010106@itforchange.net> <6A04BA59-FCE6-425E-BBBE-969D955D369D@uzh.ch> <4FCA4B52.90509@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchange.net> <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Louis > > I think Parminder's fears are right, especially for those countries (and > they the majority) who don't have neither the financial, nor the technical, > nor the human resources to establish, to operate and to maintain/develop > the "root mirror architecture" you mention in your reply. > - - - Dear Jean-Louis, This infrastructure (part of the DNS for short) is already deployed and operational. The only missing element is "root protection". You pinpoint poor countries having none of the necessary resources. But if they use internet and don' t even have ISP's they must use name servers from other countries. They might have, as in some African countries, a router in a major city administered by a foreign ISP.. In this case the only thing they have to do is "do nothing". David Conrad supplied very relevant cost elements for mirroring a root. Clearly, lack of money or expertise is not an issue. > Therefore I support a more critical approach for CS orgs on this > fundamental issue of Internet governance. > Arguments exchanged on this topic of MS oversight are very knowledgeable. They are the kind of dialectics corpus needed for advancing political negotiations at UN or IGO level. However, we are in a situation where the US hold a dominant position without any need for making the slightest concession. Presumably both dems and reps politicians would cry wolf and claim that Barack Obama were handing over internet control to some irresponsible international organization. That does not mean that dialectics are useless. On a long term, around 10 years, that may win. But arguments would be more effective if larger segments of the internet were using "protected" roots. Btw, the US would do just the same if they had to rely on a root administered by foreigners. This is a typical case of "mutually suspicious systems". Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 13 21:32:18 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:32:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <05FE6967362141318604B85EAB874953@UserVAIO> References: <05FE6967362141318604B85EAB874953@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48314D45@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, the point in comparing OGP and ICANN is first of all whether OGP has any global governance over resources or actions, or it is an agreement in which each signatory government commits to action only under its own authority. The DNS is global; there is one root, one domain name for each gTLD string, registrants are all over the world. The ICANN system builds an architecture of agreements that apply all over. I don't know that that happens under the OGP regime, and therefore the parallelisms in governance between the two need to factor in that difference. 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: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012 11:34 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; 'David Cake' Asunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight" Alejandro, If I understand you correctly the answer is that the decisions (or rather OGP commitments) are made by national governments in some form of consultation with civil society with respect to Open Government Data. These are formal and public commitments generally involving some expenditure of public resources (for the management of the government data for example). While the commitments don't I think, have the force of law (i.e. are not "binding") they do have the force of public relations and peer group pressure in that they are publicly made at the national and global partnership level and to national (and global) civil society--participation by civil society in these processes is one of the terms of the accedance to the global OGP. Also, and quite importantly, these commitments are understood to have been made in a context where there will be a form of public auditing by civil society of adherence to these commitments at both the national and global levels. Mike -----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 13, 2012 2:05 AM To: David Cake Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" ... To Mike Gurstein: I'll come back with some more detail about the parallels and non-parallels to the Open Government Partnership. Could you help us in one sense? have you explored what decisions are made by the OGP that impinge on any given country's resources in a binding way, by obligations that are binding to the government or to other stakeholders? 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: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 23:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position. This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed perspective as a result). However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self- oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control. Regards David Sent from my iPad On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been >> counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and >> more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step >> away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review >> Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not >> report to the USG. >> >> Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN >> leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency >> Review has been > > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You > invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make > ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to > make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that > exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed > of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, > its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its > members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected > entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the > Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their > mill, really. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 13 21:40:38 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:40:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch>,<4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48314D56@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, too long to reply in detail for the ROI on effort. You bring in a fundamental, unbridgeable ideological difference to bear; at least Louis makes the same clear in a lot less words. Many of your statements are counterfactual, red herrings, or unwarranted assumptions about others' intent, and the uselessness of trying to get them straight has been proven over too long a time. ICANN and many other organizations, fortunate to be out of your field of view, are being built with long-term goals of independence, accountability, etc. which you fail to identify. For the people at work in these systems, waiting to write "perfect" rules before getting things done is not only putting the cart before the horse, but not an option. That guys like David Conrad and John Curran have taken so many hours to peel off the many layers of non-understanding is commendable, all the more so when they are actually doing the work you revile. 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 parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012 06:29 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Hi All Good that there is a discussion on affirmation of commitments (AoC). I had earlier wanted to respond to Wolfgang's call to discuss this issue. My biggest problem with the AoC is that it is a trusteeship model of governance and not a democratic one. Why cant the AoC be signed by all countries, why only the US? (A larger political context is: In many ways, the US is emerging as the political centre for a new global middle class which is, to that extent, getting more and more distanced from their more disadvantaged compatriots. This global middle class is unhappy with their national political structures - ostensibly for good reasons like corruption etc - but also because political systems tend towards redistributive activities. A US centred global image and ascendant ideology of social darwinism, of so called ' merit' and privilege, is what appeals to them... I will cut this analysis short, but enough to say that in these circumstances, non-democratic trusteeship based US centric governance models appeal to this class. Correspondingly, I am even more opposed to them beyond their simple un-democratic-ness.) My second problem is; AoC does not include the crucial IANA function, in terms of which there seems to an increasingly greater desire to micro manage by the US gov then ever before (thus there is not even an evolutionary internationalisation). So starting an AoC discussion when the real big issue for most countries is the IANA part may really be a distraction. The third problem is; I think every technical body needs some kind of political oversight at a higher level. (I think Milton agrees with this, although he thinks that the US law is the best form of political oversight). I will like to ask Bill and others, if they remember that NCUC has at numerous occasions said that ICANN should stick to its narrow technical mandate and not get into public policy considerations? Now, with an ICANN only responsible to itself, are they suggesting that it (1) also decides and forms the public policy framework that informs its work, if only FoE, competition law, IP etc and (2) also acts as the appeal body unto itself on any alleged public policy violations. In short, are they now suggesting that ICANN exceeds its technical mandate, which I understand it has always professed for itself? If the technical mandate of ICANN has to grow towards public policy issues, its whole structure developed in accordance with its narrow technical mandate may have to be revisited. As for the review committees being the oversight mechanism, it really strains the concept of oversight. These are very nebulous structures with unclear role and authority. Interestingly, in the present discussion on this thread, two members of the review committees (Alex and David) actually completely differed on whether the review committees report to GAC or they do not. This is a bit strange for any kind of effectual arrangement. They also completely differ whether the review structure has any impact on 'weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control', which issue is the biggest problem. looking at the membership structure, one can see that the review structure carries forward the very problematic tendency of inbreeding and strong in-group loyalty that for me is perhaps the biggest issue with the ICANN system. Something which quite unabashedly, and in a storngly positive sense, gets called as the icann community... Almost all members of review structures are those closely associated with the 'ICANN system'. To try an analogy, would one appreciate something like a environment regulators community, and, further, have its structures reviewed by those closely involved with environment regulation, as proud members of such a community. Looking at the membership of one review committee one sees two vacancies caused by people who have, in the meantime, joined ICANN !! What extra-ordinary example of good governance systems. Although review is a subsidiary task to oversight, and not oversight, if one has to be done, it has to be done largely by informed and capable outsiders. Why does the ICANN community completely distrusts that a committee of, say, a few respected and informed newspaper editors, some renowned global media specialists etc would simply get together and sabotage the nicely done up ICANN system. This deep distrust of outsiders itself suggests how much must be wrong and unjustifiable with the system. parminder On Wednesday 13 June 2012 01:05 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi Milton On Jun 13, 2012, at 4:43 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: [Milton L Mueller] So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You invoke the GAC! So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected entity. Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their mill, really. Given what we've experienced and discussed endlessly within ICANN with regard to GAC's inability to meaningfully interface with the PDP, 12th hour objections to aspects of the new gTLD program, insistent channeling of IPR/LEA special interests, etc etc., I'm not sure I get what you're now advocating: 1. A "stronger" GAC that's more than advisory (as per, it seems, the ALAC proposal)? 2. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the national level? 3. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the international level, to be achieved through treaty negotiations (what fun!)? 4. A GAC that reports to or is even replaced by some UN entity? 5. A GAC that just goes back into the sleepy hibernation of years past, or goes away? I would certainly favor 2. And I'd like to see 3 pursued through an expanded, multilateralized/multistakeholderized AoC, rather than a treaty. 1 and 4 not so much, and 5's not happening. It's easy to agree that the AoC has had flaws and limitations in its first iteration. Do you think these are so integral that the model is irredeemably messed up and worse than conceivable alternatives like a treaty instrument and/or new UN body? I'm pretty far from convinced, and think we should be exploring ways of refining and expanding it to provide a new form of global community-wide mutual surveillance and accountability for a hopefully progressively more independent ICANN operating under a properly defined host country agreement etc. Care to elaborate? Cheers 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 00:45:07 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:45:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" Message-ID: <604181D9AB2F45B0B5FDDD333DAF4D92@UserVAIO> Alejandro, I'm not sure whether the structure being in place for global governance "over 'global' resources or actions" is a key factor here (and remember of course that any parallels or conclusions that one could draw from parallels would be only very approximate). Rather I think the significant parallel is that the governance of the national resources (in OGP) are being done within a framework which includes both national AND GLOBAL elements. Thus in theory at least there is a transfer to the global sphere within a jointly agreed upon normative framework (and to some sort of co-determination with civil society) of management of national resources and that I think is quite significant. The key elements and why I think this is something of an advance on the somewhat static positions being articulated here (status quo vs.(say) multilateral (and/or multistakeholder) oversight) is that 1. it is possible to disaggregate the areas where these structures are to prevail (for example, Net Neutrality, cybersecurity, censorship/free speech and so on) which allows for the adaptation and evolution of these structures to changing circumstances (and would also allow for the hiving off from these structures of more or less "pure" technical areas) 2. it is norm based which to a degree takes the decision making criteria out of the political sphere and makes it transparent to global CS influence and audit 3. it gives CS a key co-determining role without reducing the overall national and global accountability of national governments Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:32 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'David Cake' Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" Michael, the point in comparing OGP and ICANN is first of all whether OGP has any global governance over resources or actions, or it is an agreement in which each signatory government commits to action only under its own authority. The DNS is global; there is one root, one domain name for each gTLD string, registrants are all over the world. The ICANN system builds an architecture of agreements that apply all over. I don't know that that happens under the OGP regime, and therefore the parallelisms in governance between the two need to factor in that difference. 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: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012 11:34 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; 'David Cake' Asunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight" Alejandro, If I understand you correctly the answer is that the decisions (or rather OGP commitments) are made by national governments in some form of consultation with civil society with respect to Open Government Data. These are formal and public commitments generally involving some expenditure of public resources (for the management of the government data for example). While the commitments don't I think, have the force of law (i.e. are not "binding") they do have the force of public relations and peer group pressure in that they are publicly made at the national and global partnership level and to national (and global) civil society--participation by civil society in these processes is one of the terms of the accedance to the global OGP. Also, and quite importantly, these commitments are understood to have been made in a context where there will be a form of public auditing by civil society of adherence to these commitments at both the national and global levels. Mike -----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 13, 2012 2:05 AM To: David Cake Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" ... To Mike Gurstein: I'll come back with some more detail about the parallels and non-parallels to the Open Government Partnership. Could you help us in one sense? have you explored what decisions are made by the OGP that impinge on any given country's resources in a binding way, by obligations that are binding to the government or to other stakeholders? 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: David Cake [dave at difference.com.au] Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2012 23:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Having participated in one of the AoC review teams, I wouldn't describe the process as being particularly beholden to the GAC, or particularly typical of GAC operation. That it is not a typical example of GAC operation is a good thing - it is one of the few points within the ICANN process where GAC representatives act as equals to other community members . GAC reps on the RT act as individuals, contribute effort to the review alongside other community members, and their contributions are not treated as being 'the voice of the GAC', or representative of a national position. This contrasts with normal ICANN operation, where the GAC stays out of community policy development processes, but seeks to control the outcomes without direct participation ( and often from a fairly uninformed perspective as a result). However, the result is that the AoC process seems to not really represent GAC oversight, but rather, ICANN being accountable to the ICANN board, and ICANN overseeing itself. That the GAC participates in the ICANN self- oversight process (rather than staying within its somewhat dysfunctional silo) is a good thing, but doesn't really represent GAC oversight of ICANN in a meaningful sense in my experience. And the AoC process seems to be a valuable process for ICANN improvement, but doesn't really represent any weakening of those aspects of ICANN that are under direct US control. Regards David Sent from my iPad On 13/06/2012, at 12:43 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> For many weeks the debate about ICANN in this list has been >> counterfactual in that it does not take into account that more and >> more processes of ICANN have actually been moved a significant step >> away from "unilateral US control", by being handed over to Review >> Teams which operate under the Affirmation of Commitments and do not >> report to the USG. >> >> Instead, these reviews are reported to a combination of ICANN >> leadership and the GAC. So far the Accountability and Transparency >> Review has been > > [Milton L Mueller] > > So ICANN's Board is accountable to....ICANN's Board. And the GAC! You > invoke the GAC! > > So, let me see if I have it right: it is a terrible thing to make > ICANN report to a UN agency, or governed by a treaty, but it is OK to > make it report to a committee of governmental representatives that > exactly mirror the UN in membership eligibility, and which is composed > of the exact same governments who comprise the UN. > > The difference being that the GAC is unburdened by any law or treaty, > its decisions or pronouncements do not have to be consistent with its > members own national law, nor ratified by any democratically elected > entity. > > Thank you for making the flaws of the AoC so evident. No wonder the > Parminders of the world are dissatisfied. This is grist for their > mill, really. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Thu Jun 14 04:05:19 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:05:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Flash 5_EuroDIG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, We would like to invite you, those who attend EuroDIG in Stockholm, to attend our Flash session 5 that will take place today, at 17:05, room 202, to discuss "Use of ICTs by people with migrant background" and to present the Basic Course for local authorities representatives on the use of ICTs by people with migrant background. For more information, visit the EuroDIG website: http://www.eurodig.org/flash-5-2 We hope to welcome you today, Kind regards, Yuliya -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 14 06:39:38 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:09:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6E863004-CB5D-4FEC-8BF1-78FBA68C8280@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <4662A8EB-8A6A-403D-8968-E6080EC1DDAE@virtualized.org> <31ABE959-A18D-4565-975A-C5160C4521D8@virtualized.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE23@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4FCC8853.1030808@itforchange.net> <4FCF1C24.9020007@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC21B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD757ED.9060405@itforchan ge.net> <1378888204.15974.1339576683909.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e33> <6E863004-CB5D-4FEC-8BF1-78FBA68C8280@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <4FD9BF6A.5090502@itforchange.net> While the below discussion may be of use in its own right, I may clarify that when I talked about cost, it was the cost for a root server operator to not comply with the authoritative root zone file, in terms of the disruptions etc that it may cause... I want referring to the financial costs of setting up a root server.... parminder On Wednesday 13 June 2012 07:22 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Jean-Louis, > > On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:38 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >> I think Parminder's fears are right, especially for those countries >> (and they the majority) who don't have neither the financial, nor the >> technical, nor the human resources to establish, to operate and to >> maintain/develop the "root mirror architecture" you mention in your >> reply. >> > > The cost of deploying an anycast root instance of at least one root > server is: > > - About US$3000 or so for the hardware > - A rack unit of rackspace, an ethernet connection with unhindered > Internet connectivity, and power for the hardware > - Sufficient technical expertise to allow the hardware to announce > itself to the routing system > > The cost for mirroring the root zone in an ISP's caching server is: > > - Sufficient technical expertise to configure a resolver to > automatically mirror the root zone > -- or -- > - Sufficient technical expertise to copy the root zone and install it > by hand. > > Pretty much any full-service ISP anywhere in the world can meet either > of these requirements. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 14 06:53:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:23:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FD9C2BC.6080201@itforchange.net> Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. I agree that a simple shift from US to another body is not enough. But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than US getting to decide it alone. And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant international law. None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government. Hardly a good basis for a global governance system. parminder On Wednesday 13 June 2012 07:05 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > David Conrad wrote: > >> Just a small nit: >> >> On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> John Curran wrote: >>> >>>> For clarity, which USG "oversight role" are we referring to? >>>> >>> ... >>> 3) review of root zone changes before publication >>> >> Currently, outside of internal checks done by Verisign as the Root >> Zone Manager, there is no review of root zone changes prior to >> publication. DoC's role, as far as I understand it, is to verify >> that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed the documented >> policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD >> administrator. Once a change is authorized, the next point (outside >> of Verisign) where the change can be reviewed is after it hits the >> root servers. >> > David's nit is of course well justified in that I was indeed imprecise > there -- probably because I'm a bit of a "doubting Thomas" in regard > to the assertion that DoC would routinely, for every root zone change > request, "verify that ICANN, as the IANA function operator, followed > the documented policies and processes in handling a request from a TLD > administrator" -- it will take some serious evidence to convince me > that that role description isn't pure propaganda and not just a facade > for something that is in reality intended to be pure international > power politics. (These doubts are quite independent of the questions > about whether such an intention results in effective power, and > whether or not the resulting situation should be considered to be a > serious problem from the perspectives of people outside the US and > their governments.) > > >> As mentioned in a previous note, I believe this to be a flaw in the >> current root zone management system. >> > Since technical correctness of the resulting zone data is easier to > double-check than procedural correctness, and since I would expect > unintended honest errors on the technical level to likely occur more > frequently than any malicious subversion of the documented policies > and processes for handling requests from TLD administrators, I > agree that there seems to be some kind of flaw here. > > > In a later posting, David Conrad wrote in > response to a posting of Parminder: > >> Assume the USG forces Verisign to remove .IN from the root zone. A >> query for.IN will then result in a "name error" response >> being returned to the querying resolver (typically operated by >> ISPs). With DNSSEC, some cryptographic data is also returned that >> allows the resolver to prove (in the mathematical sense) that the >> holder of the root zone signing key (Verisign) agrees that the "name >> error" should be returned. Without DNSSEC, you still get the "name >> error", the resolver just can't prove that's what the holder of the >> zone signing key intended. >> >> So, we now have a root zone(provably, if you bother to verify the >> DNSSEC data) without .IN in it. Let's say you run an ISP anywhere >> in the world. Now, _all_ of your customers that attempt to connect >> to any website in the .IN domain will get "name does not exist" in >> their web browsers, email programs, bittorrent clients, etc. Your >> customers are probably not going to assume it is because the USG >> removed the .IN domain, rather they're more likely going to assume >> you screwed up somehow and call you to scream at you. After a >> sufficient number of calls (which, depending on the scale of your >> ISP, will probably be from minutes to hours), you'll most likely fix >> the problem for your users by getting a copy of the root zone, >> reinserting the .IN data into that copy, and putting that root zone >> on your resolvers. >> > I agree that customers of ISPs in India would indeed assume that > their ISPs have screwed up, and get their ISPs to change their > resolver config in a way that makes them independent of all root > servers which fail to carry the .IN zone. > > The situation may well be different outside India. I don't see a > lot of references to .IN domains here in Switzerland. Most people > and companies in India that I have had contact with seem to use > .COM, .NET and .ORG domain names rather than .IN, and it'll be a > lot less obvious to people that it is *their* ISP who should fix > the India domain name issue for them. > > And if it doesn't concern India but a smaller and economically > less important country, any pressure on most ISPs outside the > country from their customers will be much weaker still. > > > But anyway I don't think that "the US might want a ccTLD to suddenly > disappear" is the most appropriate threat model here. I think we > should rather discuss scenarios with some kind of slippery slope, > like e.g. the following: > > Suppose that as a first step, the US would demand that all domain > names which are used to host clear instances of child pornography > (sexual abuse of young children which is filmed or photographed > with intentions of criminal enrichment) must be deleted from DNS > within 24 hours of receipt of a notification from an US government > agency. If a TLD registry outside the US doesn't agree, maybe the US > government would demand a root zone change by means of which DNS > queries for that TLD are sent to nameservers that provide a filtered > view of that TLD. Besides the child pornography sites, all other > domains of that TLD would still work. There would not be a big public > outcry because hardly anyone wants to destroy their reputation by > taking the side of child pornography sites. > > As a second step, the same principle might get applied to sites of > Islamic extremists who promote violence. Some people would protest, > but in most countries, most ISPs would probably rather disappoint > some potential or actual customers than risk having to defend > themselves in the court of public opinion and in the courts of > law against the accusations of failing to comply with the laws and > of supporting terrorism. > > It would probably continue to go downhill from there. All kinds of > ideas are dangerous and threatening to some kinds of politicians: > Some would feel threatened in business interests tied to the > military-industrial complex if any of the groups that advocate > non-violence and anti-militarism achieves great influence. Some > would feel threatened if one of the groups that advocate holiness > in sexual purity and honesty achieves great influence and tells > people not to vote for politicans who don't live according to > these principles. Maybe I am a bit paranoid here, but it doesn't > seem far-fetched to me that in such situations, rabble-rousers > might react with racist, pro-violence slogans to the websites of > such groups, and some of those who are in power might take that as > justification to declare all kinds of strongly moral religious > statements to be too provocative to be allowed on the Internet... > > > In the above, the references to the US are mainly because it happens > to be the US that appears to have some relevant power. I wouldn't > view "let's give the role of the US to the UN" to be in any way an > improvement with regard to this kind of concerns. The fact that the UN > does some good work in regard to the promotion and protection of human > rights, and also promotes itself in the name of human rights, has not > stopped some UN agencies such as WIPO from putting human rights rather > low on their scale of actual priorities. > > > So I would suggest that what needs to be done is to work towards > an oversight model that is designed to be as robust as possible > against risks of "slippery slope" scenarios such as the one described > above. The existing international human rights law is a good starting > point IMO. I would say what is primarily missing right now is a global > multistakeholder process to interpret this practically in the > Internet governance context, in a way that results in concrete > recommendations for feasible and effective governmental actions. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 14 07:47:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:17:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 13 June 2012 06:07 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Well, it looks like a wholesale attempt to privatise hundreds of > generic words in the English language. > > CW From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I understand should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and no discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark etc) or are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do whatever about. If the latter, such wholesale privatisation of language that CW speaks about is an extremely serious issue. No one can be given a gtld with a word/name for private use unless one at least has an international trademark right to that word/name, in which case too I am not sure whether one should be given such a tld for private use, but that is a matter of relatively lower level concern. Even while allocating generic tlds open for anyone to register, competition policy may require to exclude such companies that have clear vested interest in that particular bit of digital real estate (and thus are more likely to indulgence in anti-competitive activities) . The present list of applicants mostly consists of companies seeking gtlds with names that clearly denote their core areas of business. Doesnt look like promoting a competitive domain name space, which one of the very few avowed public policy concerns of ICANN. parminder > > > On 13 Jun 2012, at 14:22, William Drake wrote: > >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en >> >> >> ICANN's numbers a bit revealing and arguably sad. Quoting the 1 pg >> overview: >> >> >> 1930 applications, after refunds, for new generic top-level domains. >> 1846 of those are “standard” applications. 84 are designated as >> “community-based”. >> >> Of the 1930, 66 have designated themselves as geographic name >> applications. >> 116 applications are Internationalized Domain Names, or IDNs, using >> non-Latin scripts. >> >> Just three applicants seek support through ICANN’s Applicant Support >> Program [that CS fought to get established.] >> >> Applications from 60 countries. Using ICANN’s definitions of the >> world’s regions: >> >> 911 applications came from North America. >> 675 from Europe. >> 303 applications are from the Asia-Pacific region. >> 24 are from Latin America and the Caribbean. >> 17 from Africa. >> >> Some domain names have been applied for by more than one applicant. >> There are 230 domain names for which at least two applications were >> submitted, involving a total of 751 applications. >> >> >> >> On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:07 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> For those interested in new gTLD, a couple thousand apps for new >>> strings >>> >>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/reveal-day-video-13jun12-en.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jun 14 08:05:05 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:05:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 background info 1 Message-ID: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT-background-brief1.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 14 08:06:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:06:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4FD9CF36.7010800 at itforchange.net>, at 17:17:02 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, parminder writes >From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new >set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I >understand should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and >no discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark >etc) or are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do >whatever about. My understanding is that only the "community" and "geographic" applications are made on the basis of making second level names available to suitably qualified members of that community. The remainder are either clearly for use only by the applicant (and sometimes his customers... if there had been a .facebook that might have been issued to accountholders, but I can't see why .barclays would be a tld intended for other than corporate use), or as pseudo communities like .accountants and new enterprises based on more eye-catching domains such as .sucks rather than .sucks.com I have a lot of sympathy for ICANN's position as expressed yesterday: "You asked us to develop a process for increasing the number of gTLDs, we have no view on the merit of what they might be used for, once they have passed the various tests we have in place". It's a bit late to be asking "remind me - why do we need more gTLDs" eight years into the process. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 14 08:15:45 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:15:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD9C2BC.6080201@itforchange.net> (message from parminder on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:23:48 +0530) References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FD9C2BC.608020 1@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120614121545.A5D13819F@quill.bollow.ch> parminder wrote: > I agree that a simple shift from US to another body is not enough. But > since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much > bigger issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other > country reps have to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along > with the US rather than US getting to decide it alone. And that much > better if there is an international law to clearly describe the > oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial > system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the > relevant international law. None of this exists at present vis a vis > US's exercise of the oversight role. It just a bunch of people convinced > that US's is a good and benign government. Hardly a good basis for a > global governance system. The question is: How we can realistically move forward to improve the situation, in such a way that we can expect to eventually reach a good global governance system? 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 ocl at gih.com Thu Jun 14 08:53:16 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:53:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK Message-ID: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another agenda... >From the BBC Web site: "Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government plans..." Full article & link on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112 Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does this send to undemocratic countries? Kind regards, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jun 14 09:31:01 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:31:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: <8C89BF34-F2C6-4369-943F-0A233EF49668@istaff.org> On Jun 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a > multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another > agenda... > > From the BBC Web site: > "Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to > allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government > plans..." Indeed. It is clear that law enforcement needs some basic mechanisms in order to do its job (e.g. ability to associate a real-world entity with an IP address or domain name), but the societal tradeoffs of user activity record are nowhere near as clear. Determining acceptable (and unacceptable) conventions for this type of data collection is a typical challenging Internet Governance discussion and highlights why an open, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder forum is definitely necessary. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. The use of recording devices (aside from IGC for its purposes) is prohibited for the entire duration of my performance. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 09:49:42 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:49:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: <83gGP1C2ve2PFADo@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4FD9DEBC.80809 at gih.com>, at 14:53:16 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond writes >Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a >multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another >agenda... > >From the BBC Web site: >"Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to >allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government >plans..." > >Full article & link on: >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112 > >Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does >this send to undemocratic countries? I'm struggling to understand what this proposal is requiring that wasn't in the EU's 2006 Data Retention Directive. Other than fully implementing it, that is (rather than just doing the easy bits). -- 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 andrea00 at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 10:31:07 2012 From: andrea00 at gmail.com (andrea) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:31:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: > > Thank you for sharing! > Indeed I am experiencing exactly what you mention. I am working on a study > on Internet and social media in Iraq as part of a media development project > sponsored by Internews and UNESCO. > > Iraq fragile democracy has still (!) one of the most free Internet > worldwide according to Open Net Initiative, but soon may no longer be true. > The government presented last year a law called Informatics Crime Law ( > http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2792/en/iraq:-draft-informatics-crimes-law) > that has been widely criticized by International observers, for its heavy > impact on Internet freedom. Without entering into much details of Iraq > situation (happy to share if you are interested), examples coming from well > established democracies have indeed an impact far beyond their national > borders. > > It may be a sign again that a similar debate must be addressed at the > International level, in a more consistent manner. When I met and > interviewed Iraqi officials I wish I could have shown them concrete best > practices, guidelines, approaches...maybe from the IGF after 7 years? > > Best, > Andrea > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a >> multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another >> agenda... >> >> From the BBC Web site: >> "Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to >> allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government >> plans..." >> >> Full article & link on: >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112 >> >> Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does >> this send to undemocratic countries? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Andrea Beccalli | Consultant - Iraq | INTERNEWS EUROPE | Information > changes lives* > **+964 7507633720 * > abeccalli at internews.eu * www.internews.eu > [image: Description: PastedGraphic-1] > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 12175 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 drc at virtualized.org Thu Jun 14 11:14:13 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD9C2BC.6080201@itforchange.net> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FD9C2BC.608020 1@itforc hange.net> Message-ID: <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org> Norbert and Parminder, On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote: > Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test. They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social risk/fallout at other points in the system. The idea that ISPs of the world would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the giggle test for me. However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I gather you believe there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat: > But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than US getting to decide it alone. (and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-)) > And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant international law. As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes (well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like .US). What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly the same actions you believe the US can take? > None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government. You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 14 12:00:13 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:00:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > I would be very interested if you (or others) could point to more detailed > descriptions/analyses of this approach. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2009/09/30/taking-a-hard-look-at-the-affirmation/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 12:05:57 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:05:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Given what we've experienced and discussed endlessly within ICANN with regard to GAC's inability to meaningfully interface with the PDP, 12th hour objections to aspects of the new gTLD program, insistent channeling of IPR/LEA special interests, etc etc., I'm not sure I get what you're now advocating: 1. A "stronger" GAC that's more than advisory (as per, it seems, the ALAC proposal)? 2. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the national level? 3. A GAC whose members are bound by/reflective of greater accountability, transparency and inclusion at the international level, to be achieved through treaty negotiations (what fun!)? 4. A GAC that reports to or is even replaced by some UN entity? 5. A GAC that just goes back into the sleepy hibernation of years past, or goes away? None of the above. 1. Abolish the GAC. 2. Develop a legal agreement formalizing ICANN's accountability, limiting its powers, and limiting the powers of governments over it. Let govts ratify that treaty. 3. If you don't like the second step, then complete the transition of ICANN to fully private status and define a membership status that makes it truly accountable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 12:13:03 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a > multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another > agenda... Right. Right. Right. This is why the ITU conspiracy talk irritates me so much. National govts - of all types and stripes - are objectively a far greater threat to Internet freedom. Not that the ITU is no threat at all, but it can't do much without a fairly wide consensus among national govt members, and the inordinate amount of attention devoted to it has certain features of a diversionary tactic. > Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does > this send to undemocratic countries? Exactly. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 12:32:36 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:32:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> >From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I understand should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and no discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark etc) or are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do whatever about. If the latter, such wholesale privatisation of language that CW speaks about is an extremely serious issue. No it isn't. First of all, there is no privatization of "language." There is an exclusive registration of a domain name identifier at the top level. IGP has registered "internetgovernance" under .org, that does not permit us to prevent anyone from uttering those words, or from registering them in another context (e.g., under another TLD or as a TLD or as a company name or as part of their organization name, etc.) Or to make it a bit more pointed, your registration of ITforchange under the .net domain is not different in status and exclusivity than if someone registered ITforchange as a TLD. Youre registration of that domain doesn't prevent anyone from using that language anywhere else. But it does give you an exclusive assignment in the .net domain, because that is how DNS works. Each string much be uniquely assigned. Whether registrants of these names operate as an open domain or not is simply a business model choice, which ICANN wisely refrained from trying to dictate. In fact, the view that you and Wilkinson are putting forward is the most restrictive and inimical to freedom of expression, because it assumes that some central authority has to decide who has the exclusive right to determine how particular names can be used in the DNS. This is the reason it has taken nearly 15 years to make the simple decision to add new TLDs to the Internet. Everyone assumes that we must determine who has the God-given right to claim a certain character string, when the simple fact is that millions of people have the same right to claim it, and it is simply a matter of who gets there first or who values it the most. Barring trademark violations, which involves infringing uses and not simple registration, anyone should be able to register anything. The opposite view mistakenly assumes that a domain name registration has intrinsic value based on the meaning of the label (it doesn't, as a bunch of investors are about to find out). No one can be given a gtld with a word/name for private use unless one at least has an international trademark right to that word/name Factually and legally wrong. Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example. No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket exclusivity of course. Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn't prevent someone else from registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. Even while allocating generic tlds open for anyone to register, competition policy may require to exclude such companies that have clear vested interest in that particular bit of digital real estate (and thus are more likely to indulgence in anti-competitive activities) Not unless there is market power and no competitive alternatives. When WILL you learn the basics of competition law/policy? The present list of applicants mostly consists of companies seeking gtlds with names that clearly denote their core areas of business. Doesnt look like promoting a competitive domain name space I would like to see an articulation of what you mean by a competitive domain name space. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 12:37:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:37:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The third problem is; I think every technical body needs some kind of political oversight at a higher level. (I think Milton agrees with this, although he thinks that the US law is the best form of political oversight). Inaccurate. I simply said that given the default we are in, the costs and risks of moving it out seem to outweigh the alternatives, especially when the alternative is international law which is if anything less accessible to ordinary people and less effective at enforcing accountability on routine matters. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Jun 14 12:53:12 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:53:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48316219@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Milton, the blog entry from almost three years ago you on which you invite comment has mostly been obsoleted by events. Several of them, including the actual performance of the reviews, have proven that the fear of deviation to top-down is unfounded. The community has proven that it is wise and strong enough to avoid it. 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 Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: jueves, 14 de junio de 2012 11:00 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'michael gurstein' Asunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight" > -----Original Message----- > I would be very interested if you (or others) could point to more detailed > descriptions/analyses of this approach. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2009/09/30/taking-a-hard-look-at-the-affirmation/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 14 13:40:40 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:40:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0ED791@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton is - mainly -correct: The opposite view mistakenly assumes that a domain name registration has intrinsic value based on the meaning of the label (it doesn't, as a bunch of investors are about to find out). My comment: There's firms registering for defensive purposes, who feel a particular character string as gtld is better for them to have than anyone else. Those folks are subsidizing ICANN ad infinitum; so they can cross-subsidize the rest of us. No problem ; ) And also no problem for example for Apple, as one might surmise that management feels .apple has intrinsic value to Apple. Then there's the entrepreneurs and speculators, hoping to building a business around a character string. That's kind of like playing the lottery, with the odds being quite high there are more losers than winners, as Milton points out. Which is another cross-subsidy for the rest of us, assuming cough cough that ICANN stays the same lean hyperefficient org it is and does not squander the new registration $ received. Even if we assume the fees are set at the current marginal cost for managing the process now, as ICANN learns more its average cost per gtld should go down. What's not to like for the average user? Personally, I .love it. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:32 PM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour >From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I understand should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and no discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark etc) or are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do whatever about. If the latter, such wholesale privatisation of language that CW speaks about is an extremely serious issue. No it isn't. First of all, there is no privatization of "language." There is an exclusive registration of a domain name identifier at the top level. IGP has registered "internetgovernance" under .org, that does not permit us to prevent anyone from uttering those words, or from registering them in another context (e.g., under another TLD or as a TLD or as a company name or as part of their organization name, etc.) Or to make it a bit more pointed, your registration of ITforchange under the .net domain is not different in status and exclusivity than if someone registered ITforchange as a TLD. Youre registration of that domain doesn’t prevent anyone from using that language anywhere else. But it does give you an exclusive assignment in the .net domain, because that is how DNS works. Each string much be uniquely assigned. Whether registrants of these names operate as an open domain or not is simply a business model choice, which ICANN wisely refrained from trying to dictate. In fact, the view that you and Wilkinson are putting forward is the most restrictive and inimical to freedom of expression, because it assumes that some central authority has to decide who has the exclusive right to determine how particular names can be used in the DNS. This is the reason it has taken nearly 15 years to make the simple decision to add new TLDs to the Internet. Everyone assumes that we must determine who has the God-given right to claim a certain character string, when the simple fact is that millions of people have the same right to claim it, and it is simply a matter of who gets there first or who values it the most. Barring trademark violations, which involves infringing uses and not simple registration, anyone should be able to register anything. The opposite view mistakenly assumes that a domain name registration has intrinsic value based on the meaning of the label (it doesn't, as a bunch of investors are about to find out). No one can be given a gtld with a word/name for private use unless one at least has an international trademark right to that word/name Factually and legally wrong. Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example. No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket exclusivity of course. Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn’t prevent someone else from registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. Even while allocating generic tlds open for anyone to register, competition policy may require to exclude such companies that have clear vested interest in that particular bit of digital real estate (and thus are more likely to indulgence in anti-competitive activities) Not unless there is market power and no competitive alternatives. When WILL you learn the basics of competition law/policy? The present list of applicants mostly consists of companies seeking gtlds with names that clearly denote their core areas of business. Doesnt look like promoting a competitive domain name space I would like to see an articulation of what you mean by a competitive domain name space. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 14 16:16:42 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:16:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> I thought WCIT was a vote, not consensus. If it was consensus I would have little concern, but with a vote I have more. And as I say I am much more concerned about the protocol issues than numbering issues and these more than any naming issues. I know that you and the NYT have told me I need have no concern, but for now I just don't see it that way. avri Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in >a >> multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on >another >> agenda... > >Right. Right. Right. This is why the ITU conspiracy talk irritates me >so much. National govts - of all types and stripes - are objectively a >far greater threat to Internet freedom. Not that the ITU is no threat >at all, but it can't do much without a fairly wide consensus among >national govt members, and the inordinate amount of attention devoted >to it has certain features of a diversionary tactic. > >> Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does >> this send to undemocratic countries? > >Exactly. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 14 16:28:29 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:28:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: Hi Olivier, This is happening almost everywhere in some form. There is DPI being done in my region for quite some time now. In the US, they have data centres built to store huge amounts of such information for years. Many would twist this information in directions of IG etc but this is something that is pragmatically happening and is a law related issue. I think they do a lot of this in the EU, remember the cases in Germany where they can give criminals new lives deleting data about their crime etc.... The fear I'd have would be how many more would follow and copy enforce this activity? Best Foo On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a > multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on another > agenda... > > From the BBC Web site: > "Details of internet use in the UK will have to be stored for a year to > allow police and intelligence services to access it, under government > plans..." > > Full article & link on: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18434112 > > Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does > this send to undemocratic countries? > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 16:50:47 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:50:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Factually and legally wrong.**** Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example.**** No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket exclusivity of course.**** Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn’t prevent someone else from registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. I would be really grateful if someone could clarify for me - in this context is the only possible interpretation of value money? I don't think it was money value the Arabic speakers were complaining about when they saw their proposed names printed back to front. I have an intense dislike of the "level playing field" metaphor since it proclaims equal opportunity while conveniently forgetting that the players on one of the teams may not have eaten any breakfast and may not be wearing football boots. Thank you Deirdre On 14 June 2012 12:32, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new > set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I understand > should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and no > discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark etc) or > are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do whatever about. > If the latter, such wholesale privatisation of language that CW speaks > about is an extremely serious issue. > > **** > > No it isn't. **** > > ** ** > > First of all, there is no privatization of "language." There is an > exclusive registration of a domain name identifier at the top level. IGP > has registered "internetgovernance" under .org, that does not permit us to > prevent anyone from uttering those words, or from registering them in > another context (e.g., under another TLD or as a TLD or as a company name > or as part of their organization name, etc.) **** > > Or to make it a bit more pointed, your registration of ITforchange under > the .net domain is not different in status and exclusivity than if someone > registered ITforchange as a TLD. Youre registration of that domain doesn’t > prevent anyone from using that language anywhere else. But it does give you > an exclusive assignment in the .net domain, because that is how DNS works. > Each string much be uniquely assigned.**** > > ** ** > > Whether registrants of these names operate as an open domain or not is > simply a business model choice, which ICANN wisely refrained from trying to > dictate. **** > > ** ** > > In fact, the view that you and Wilkinson are putting forward is the most > restrictive and inimical to freedom of expression, because it assumes that > some central authority has to decide who has the exclusive right to > determine how particular names can be used in the DNS. This is the reason > it has taken nearly 15 years to make the simple decision to add new TLDs to > the Internet. Everyone assumes that we must determine who has the God-given > right to claim a certain character string, when the simple fact is that > millions of people have the same right to claim it, and it is simply a > matter of who gets there first or who values it the most. Barring trademark > violations, which involves infringing uses and not simple registration, > anyone should be able to register anything. **** > > ** ** > > The opposite view mistakenly assumes that a domain name registration has > intrinsic value based on the meaning of the label **** > > (it doesn't, as a bunch of investors are about to find out). **** > > > No one can be given a gtld with a word/name for private use unless one at > least has an international trademark right to that word/name**** > > ** ** > > Factually and legally wrong. **** > > Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example. **** > > No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket > exclusivity of course. **** > > Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn’t prevent someone else from > registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding > war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. **** > > ** ** > > Even while allocating generic tlds open for anyone to register, > competition policy may require to exclude such companies that have clear > vested interest in that particular bit of digital real estate (and thus are > more likely to indulgence in anti-competitive activities)**** > > ** ** > > Not unless there is market power and no competitive alternatives. **** > > When WILL you learn the basics of competition law/policy? **** > > ** ** > > The present list of applicants mostly consists of companies seeking gtlds > with names that clearly denote their core areas of business. Doesnt look > like promoting a competitive domain name space**** > > ** ** > > I would like to see an articulation of what you mean by a competitive > domain name space. **** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 14 17:01:47 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:01:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 16:50:47 on Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >I have an intense dislike of the "level playing field" metaphor since >it proclaims equal opportunity while conveniently forgetting that the >players on one of the teams may not have eaten any breakfast and may >not be wearing football boots I will remember that powerful metaphor, it's very perceptive. -- 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 shailam at yahoo.com Thu Jun 14 17:17:41 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour In-Reply-To: References: <55D42024-B887-4CEC-967E-942F6BC7C9A1@uzh.ch> <195B5DAF-33AE-442A-80B9-A59DBACABDFE@uzh.ch> <2F9FBBB3-8B0E-43EF-993A-2B22A1733AAE@christopherwilkinson.eu> <4FD9CF36.7010800@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E71@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1339708661.71168.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Very well put. Equality has many hidden inequalities! Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Reminder: The Big Reveal is in One Hour Factually and legally wrong. Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example. No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket exclusivity of course. Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn’t prevent someone else from registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. I would be really grateful if someone could clarify for me - in this context is the only possible interpretation of value money? I don't think it was money value the Arabic speakers were complaining about when they saw their proposed names printed back to front. I have an intense dislike of the "level playing field" metaphor since it proclaims equal opportunity while conveniently forgetting that the players on one of the teams may not have eaten any breakfast and may not be wearing football boots. Thank you Deirdre On 14 June 2012 12:32, Milton L Mueller wrote:   >  >From those who know better, I will like to know whether the present new set of new tlds is of unrestricted gtlds like .com etc, which I understand should be open for anyone to register a web space under, and no discrimination can be made (other then clear criteria of trademark etc) or are they all private tlds that the owner can decide to do whatever about. If the latter, such wholesale privatisation of language that CW speaks about is an extremely serious issue. > > >No it isn't. >  >First of all, there is no privatization of "language." There is an exclusive registration of a domain name identifier at the top level. IGP has registered "internetgovernance" under .org, that does not permit us to prevent anyone from uttering those words, or from registering them in another context (e.g., under another TLD or as a TLD or as a company name or as part of their organization name, etc.) >Or to make it a bit more pointed, your registration of ITforchange under the .net domain is not different in status and exclusivity than if someone registered ITforchange as a TLD. Youre registration of that domain doesn’t prevent anyone from using that language anywhere else. But it does give you an exclusive assignment in the .net domain, because that is how DNS works. Each string much be uniquely assigned. >  >Whether registrants of these names operate as an open domain or not is simply a business model choice, which ICANN wisely refrained from trying to dictate.   >  >In fact, the view that you and Wilkinson are putting forward is the most restrictive and inimical to freedom of expression, because it assumes that some central authority has to decide who has the exclusive right to determine how particular names can be used in the DNS. This is the reason it has taken nearly 15 years to make the simple decision to add new TLDs to the Internet. Everyone assumes that we must determine who has the God-given right to claim a certain character string, when the simple fact is that millions of people have the same right to claim it, and it is simply a matter of who gets there first or who values it the most. Barring trademark violations, which involves infringing uses and not simple registration, anyone should be able to register anything. >  >The opposite view mistakenly assumes that a domain name registration has intrinsic value based on the meaning of the label >(it doesn't, as a bunch of investors are about to find out). > >No one can be given a gtld with a word/name for private use unless one at least has an international trademark right to that word/name >  >Factually and legally wrong. >Someone can be and will be assigned .music, for example. >No one should be able to trademark that term as a generic, blanket exclusivity of course. >Even Apple Computer's strong trademark doesn’t prevent someone else from registering .apple if they are willing to enter into an expensive bidding war and don't use it in a way that runs afoul of trademark law. >  >Even while allocating generic tlds open for anyone to register, competition policy may require to exclude such companies that have clear vested interest in that particular bit of digital real estate (and thus are more likely to indulgence in anti-competitive activities) >  >Not unless there is market power and no competitive alternatives. >When WILL you learn the basics of competition law/policy? >  >The present list of applicants mostly consists of companies seeking gtlds with names that clearly denote their core areas of business. Doesnt look like promoting a competitive domain name space >  >I would like to see an articulation of what you mean by a competitive domain name space. >  >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jun 14 19:58:18 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:58:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org> Message-ID: David wrote: >You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely >works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current >scheme isn't going to break things. I personally will be much happier when the technical community, in addition to acknowledging that there are issues with current governance, takes a pro-active stance in devising new governance patterns rather than just taking a stance of providing a critique of proposals. A lack of progress in this area only feeds the arguments of those who want greater government control. Ian Peter From: David Conrad Reply-To: , David Conrad Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:13 -0700 To: , parminder Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Norbert and Parminder, On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote: > > Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test. They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social risk/fallout at other points in the system. The idea that ISPs of the world would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the giggle test for me. However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I gather you believe there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat: > But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger > issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have > to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than > US getting to decide it alone. (and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-)) > And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the > oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial > system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant > international law. As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes (well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like .US). What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly the same actions you believe the US can take? > None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. > It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government. You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things. Regards, -drc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Jun 14 20:10:04 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:10:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48316F67@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Ian, the technical community is "addressing the open issues with current governance." You may not like what you see or, even, you may not see it, but it is being done (not "happening" but being done.) At some point we had high hopes that people with your type of education, experience, and outlook, and with whom we have established a lot of trust through common efforts like the ISTF, would join forces and instill wisdom in a true grand collaboration. I - against a load of evidence - continue hopeful. 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 Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: jueves, 14 de junio de 2012 18:58 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad; parminder Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" David wrote: >You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely >works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current >scheme isn't going to break things. I personally will be much happier when the technical community, in addition to acknowledging that there are issues with current governance, takes a pro-active stance in devising new governance patterns rather than just taking a stance of providing a critique of proposals. A lack of progress in this area only feeds the arguments of those who want greater government control. Ian Peter ________________________________ From: David Conrad > Reply-To: >, David Conrad > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:13 -0700 To: >, parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Norbert and Parminder, On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote: Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test. They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social risk/fallout at other points in the system. The idea that ISPs of the world would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the giggle test for me. However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I gather you believe there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat: But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than US getting to decide it alone. (and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-)) And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant international law. As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes (well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like .US). What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly the same actions you believe the US can take? None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government. You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things. Regards, -drc ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jun 14 21:16:03 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:16:03 +1000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48316F67@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alx, dear long time friend and comrade in arms, Let me first acknowledge that within ICANN there have been some significant changes in recent years as regards the AOC, so, yes, some changes are occurring, and clearly some good work is going on. But as regards the IANA contracts, root zone authorisation, and USG role, which was the subject of my message - I would very happily work with anyone in the technical community towards a good evolution from current arrangements. I would very much like that involvement. But the only place I am aware of where suggestions of any pro-active sort are being made is this list, and its great to see increasing involvement here. I guess that¹s a positive sign but it would be great to see positive proposals on ways forward from people like NROs, ISOC, rootops, etc. Are there other actions I should be aware of, or initiatives under way which I could assist with as regards this particular problem? Ian Peter From: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Reply-To: , "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:10:04 +0000 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Ian Peter , David Conrad , parminder Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" Ian, the technical community is "addressing the open issues with current governance." You may not like what you see or, even, you may not see it, but it is being done (not "happening" but being done.) At some point we had high hopes that people with your type of education, experience, and outlook, and with whom we have established a lot of trust through common efforts like the ISTF, would join forces and instill wisdom in a true grand collaboration. I - against a load of evidence - continue hopeful. 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 Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: jueves, 14 de junio de 2012 18:58 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad; parminder Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" David wrote: >You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely >works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current >scheme isn't going to break things. I personally will be much happier when the technical community, in addition to acknowledging that there are issues with current governance, takes a pro-active stance in devising new governance patterns rather than just taking a stance of providing a critique of proposals. A lack of progress in this area only feeds the arguments of those who want greater government control. Ian Peter From: David Conrad > Reply-To: >, David Conrad > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:13 -0700 To: >, parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Norbert and Parminder, On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote: > > Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test. They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social risk/fallout at other points in the system. The idea that ISPs of the world would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the giggle test for me. However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. I gather you believe there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat: > But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger > issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have > to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than > US getting to decide it alone. (and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-)) > And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the > oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial > system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant > international law. As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes (well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like .US). What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly the same actions you believe the US can take? > None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. > It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government. You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone. What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things. Regards, -drc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 15 01:37:13 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:07:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 June 2012 10:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The third problem is; I think every technical body needs some kind of > political oversight at a higher level. (I think Milton agrees with > this, although he thinks that the US law is the best form of political > oversight). > > Inaccurate. I simply said that given the default we are in, the costs > and risks of moving it out seem to outweigh the alternatives, > I really dont find any real difference between what I said you say, and what you claim you say. Ok, lets say, you think US law is the best form of political oversight, given the present circumstances. Doesnt change much, every political judgement is as per to present circumstances. And for me, this statement is as problematic as the other one. > especially when the alternative is international law which is if > anything less accessible to ordinary people and less effective at > enforcing accountability on routine matters. > You are saying US law is more accessible and offers better accountability than international law to non US people!!! What a high-handed claim to make! Are you sure you will like to seen saying that kind of a 'silly' thing (a term you use often :) ). May we just have the basic decency to ask non US people if this is what they think :). 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 15 02:15:51 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:45:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FDAD317.10903@itforchange.net> On Thursday 14 June 2012 09:35 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > None of the above. > > 1. Abolish the GAC. > Yes, I agree. > 2. Develop a legal agreement formalizing ICANN's accountability, > limiting its powers, and limiting the powers of governments over it. > Let govts ratify that treaty. > Right. I agree. But you say this, and very often slip away. If you are proposing a model , it has to have a basic solidity (even if, 'under the circumstances' kind) > 3. If you don't like the second step, > then complete the transition of ICANN to fully private status and define a membership status that makes it truly accountable. So, here you slip away again :). Well still. Since you are the one who is proposing the model, can you yourself propose, what kind of membership and membership status, under what statutes, how does the whole thing operate, and how and to whom issues/ grievances are escalated if needed. 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 karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Fri Jun 15 02:22:50 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:22:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120615082250.14287nkcgneg0bzu@mail1.itu.ch> it looks like it is an article written especially for the news ICANN (US) - ITU (UN) since 2009! Karim Quoting Milton L Mueller : > > >> -----Original Message----- >> I would be very interested if you (or others) could point to more detailed >> descriptions/analyses of this approach. > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2009/09/30/taking-a-hard-look-at-the-affirmation/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Fri Jun 15 02:40:44 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:40:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I do have great concern about the freedom and openness of the Internet in all countries. The Internet birth was to reunite all mankind. The biggest challenge is how to go about these? What we work for all? Sonigitu On 14 Jun 2012 21:29, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: Hi Olivier, This is happening almost everywhere in some form. There is DPI being done in my region for quite some time now. In the US, they have data centres built to store huge amounts of such information for years. Many would twist this information in directions of IG etc but this is something that is pragmatically happening and is a law related issue. I think they do a lot of this in the EU, remember the cases in Germany where they can give criminals new lives deleting data about their crime etc.... The fear I'd have would be how many more would follow and copy enforce this activity? Best Foo On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in a > multi-stakeholder environ... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subs... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 15 02:48:26 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:18:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FDADABA.5020105@itforchange.net> I agree that there is much that could happen at the ITU which poses danger to the Internet as we know. And we need to be careful, vigilant and active. I also agree with Avri's hierarchy of concerns, in this regard. What I dont like is (1) One sidedness of the hugely dominant discourse that can rent all public spaces and avenues to cry hoarse over the minutest, actual or imagined, activity that hurts the nicely settled status quo, which is largely a Northern take on things, while it so completely ignores or pooh poohs real and legitimate concerns of many actors from the South, vis a vis the status quo. This onesidedness is the problem (2) A somewhat related onesided-ness of the hugely dominant and shrill discourse vis a vis the claimed gov-control and civil-political human rights issues, and complete ignoring of the very real dangers of corporate control and economic and social rights issues. For instance, everyone seems to be happily ignoring the fact that the recently released background brief on WCIT has the following as perhaps the only para describing a substantive issue "Meanwhile, some companies offer web-based services that are growing in popularity, but which use increasing amounts of network capacity without necessarily generating larger revenues for the companies that provide the infrastructure. The market is evolving fast, just as demand is booming worldwide. How is new infrastructure to be expanded to cope with demand (especially in developing countries), and who should pay for its expansion and its use?" A solid global network neutrality related alarm bell if they ever could be one. Also shows the domination of telecom firms over ITU and how this could be a such big problem - destroying the basis of the Internet as we know. Other substantive issue that is mentioned is a right to communicate, something I look to with much positive anticipation. Again, it is the hegemony of certain powers and their discourse that even a 'rights based framing' gets exclusively seen in suspicious terms, completely ignoring its good potential. I do think that the ICT space should be constructed from a rights based perspective, and a right to communicate is a solid basis to start such a construction. parminder On Friday 15 June 2012 01:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I thought WCIT was a vote, not consensus. > > If it was consensus I would have little concern, but with a vote I have more. And as I say I am much more concerned about the protocol issues than numbering issues and these more than any naming issues. > > I know that you and the NYT have told me I need have no concern, but for now I just don't see it that way. > > avri > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> Whilst experts discuss Internet freedom, democracy and governance in >>> >> a >> >>> multi-stakeholder environment in Stockholm, politicians work on >>> >> another >> >>> agenda... >>> >> Right. Right. Right. This is why the ITU conspiracy talk irritates me >> so much. National govts - of all types and stripes - are objectively a >> far greater threat to Internet freedom. Not that the ITU is no threat >> at all, but it can't do much without a fairly wide consensus among >> national govt members, and the inordinate amount of attention devoted >> to it has certain features of a diversionary tactic. >> >> >>> Personal comment: if democratic countries do this, what message does >>> this send to undemocratic countries? >>> >> Exactly. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From abigabaw at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 04:46:08 2012 From: abigabaw at gmail.com (Wilson Abigaba) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:46:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP Message-ID: I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia, A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 15 05:53:47 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:53:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <4FDADABA.5020105@itforchange.net> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> <4FDADABA.5020105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0An0yIlrYw2PFAB3@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4FDADABA.5020105 at itforchange.net>, at 12:18:26 on Fri, 15 Jun 2012, parminder writes >everyone seems to be happily ignoring the fact that the recently >released background brief on WCIT has the following as perhaps the only >para describing a substantive issue > >   "Meanwhile, some companies offer web-based services that are growing >in popularity, but which use increasing amounts of network capacity >without necessarily generating larger revenues for the companies that >provide the infrastructure. The market is evolving fast, just as demand >is booming worldwide. How is new infrastructure to be expanded to cope >with demand (especially in developing countries), and who should pay >for its expansion and its use" The answer is "subscribers" (aka eyeballs), but that has a tension with "Network Neutrality" of the kind which says "Dear Customer, the amount of money you are paying is only sufficient for 1GB [or whatever] of traffic a month. Please upgrade to a more expensive package because you are using too much". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jun 15 06:25:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:25:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> Message-ID: In message , at 01:28:29 on Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >This is happening almost everywhere in some form. > >There is DPI being done in my region for quite some time now. In the >US, they have data centres built to store huge amounts of such >information for years. > >Many would twist this information in directions of IG etc but this is >something that is pragmatically happening and is a law related issue. >I think they do a lot of this in the EU You are quite correct. The data *gathering* powers are just the same as enshrined in the EU's Data Retention Directive. The only substantive changes in this new UK law is a review of who can demand *disclosure* (it's actually fewer public authorities than before, not more) and a much more sophisticated way to draw a line between "content" (what you did) and "traffic data" (where you did it). The 12yr-old law that this will replace says (in effect) that the "where" data is restricted to just the IP address of the server, but not (in, for example, the case of a web server) which web page. This compromise was something I negotiated with the lawmakers at the time, because there was deep concern from Civil Society about the intrusiveness of the "where", and being too detailed in the case of a url. It even had a name: "Big Browser" (an allusion to "Big Brother"). eg: it is argued that the url: http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2012-06/msg00315.html is indistinguishable from content, because it shows exactly what the person has looked at. Obtaining specific content that a person has looked at (by analogy with wiretapping) requires invoking a much stricter regime of interception warrants. However, if we say that all we are prepared to have disclosed as traffic data is "the IGCaucus site", that approximates in most cases to "the url as far as the first single forward slash", viz: http://lists.igcaucus.org And I went and briefed officials and ministers, with rfcs describing URLs and URIs under my arm, and the conclusion was that you can't write something as technology specific as "up to the first single forward slash" in an Act of Parliament, so "the server"[1] (and in practice it's most likely to be "identified by" its IP address) was the proxy that was used. This new law seems to be saying that the degree of disclosure (how far up the url is allowed) will now be defined on a case-by-case basis, while still respecting privacy to the full extent of the ECHR. In the case of my example, perhaps: http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/governance/2012-06/ would be deemed appropriate (in other words the "where" is the June 2012 archive, but no indication of which individual message was retrieved from the archive). I'm sure there will be a long debate about how well or badly people expect this to work. If anyone feels like sponsoring me to work on this further, I'd be happy to quote. [1] Strictly, "the apparatus", see the last sentence of 21(6): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/21 -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Jun 15 07:28:59 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:28:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FD9C2BC.6080201@itforc hange.net> <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <476708296.28022.1339759739758.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> Hello David   You are trying to convince those of us who have some concerns regarding the role of USG in Internet governance. However, somewhere your "optimism" is bordering on angelism, since some of us still have in mind Echelon, the worldwide US spying system that you may ignore. If you have some time left please read Duncan Campbell's articles upon this theme and the COMINT Report to the European Parliament whose Temporrairy Committee concluded on the validity of the suspicion about the actual role of Echelon as a vector of the US Intelligence.   Best   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 14/06/12 17:32 > De : "David Conrad" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "parminder" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] "Oversight" > >Norbert and Parminder, > On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:53 AM, parminder wrote: Norbert has put the 'slippery slope' scenario quite well. > >  From my perspective, having been at times in various points in the processes you're concerned about, these scenarios all fail the sniff test.  They rely on several independent parties (at the very least, the USG, the root server operators, and the operators of resolvers) all working in concert against their own self interest in order for actions to be taken that can be much more easily imposed with less political/economic/social risk/fallout at other points in the system.  The idea that ISPs of the world would turn a blind eye and meekly submit if the US government decided to hijack root name resolution regardless of the reason doesn't even pass the giggle test for me. > However, it seems clear to me that you are convinced this is a viable threat and nothing I can say will convince you otherwise.  I gather you believe there needs to be a treaty-based solution to address that threat: > But since in the discharge of the oversight role, commission is a much bigger issue than omission, it is certainly better if say 15 other country reps have to simultaneously agree to an act of commission along with the US rather than US getting to decide it alone. > (and people complain that root zone changes take far too long now :-))   > And that much better if there is an international law to clearly describe the oversight role, its procedures and limits, and an international judicial system to adjudicate whether the concerned body acted as per the relevant international law. > As I tried to describe earlier, as far as I know, the current role of the USG in matters related to root zone management is to verify that ICANN hasn't gone off the rails. It has no active role. It doesn't propose changes (well, other than changes to domains it has direct responsibility for like .US).  What exactly do you anticipate this international body doing? Given the technical architecture of the DNS requires a single source of data and that single source must physically exist in some host country somewhere, how would this international body prevent the host country from doing exactly the same actions you believe the US can take? > None of this exists at present vis a vis US's exercise of the oversight role. It just a bunch of people convinced that US's is a good and benign government.  > > You keep saying this, but I see no evidence of this stance from anyone.  What I do see is pragmatism: the Internet largely works (for some value of the variable 'work') and before we risk that, we need to be sure what replaces the current scheme isn't going to break things. > Regards, -drc > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 15 07:59:40 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:59:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: (message from David Conrad on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:25:32 -0700) References: Message-ID: <20120615115940.9C710819F@quill.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > Using non-factual horrors a rogue version of the USG could attempt > to inflict upon the Internet as justification for giving "oversight > control" (whatever that means) to an undefined UN body is, in my > view, unhelpful as it distracts from more potentially useful efforts > in attempting to create a less-US-centric oversight mechanism of > what ICANN actually does do. Ok, why don't we leave the kind of scenarios that you describe as non-factual horrors aside for now (even though some of what the USG has in fact inflicted on people outside the US are things where --if these things had not in fact happened-- I would have described the idea as a non-factual horror that a government which is democratic and strongly committed to human rights might take such actions) and discuss oversight mechanisms to guard against scenarios that you would agree might potentially happen in the absence of adequate oversight. What are in your view realistic scenarios that the oversight function for ICANN should protect us from? 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 15 10:45:02 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:45:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <476708296.28022.1339759739758.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> References: <4FBD029B.6030908@itforchange.net> <20120605001706.49FE5819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120605102914.6E3CC819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FCF2949.1030902@itforchange.net> <21F33E8D-CCDC-44C0-822F-9D9BACD96661@virtualized.org> <4FD0DE32.5080100@itforchange.net>,<54240E07-F064-491B-BD72-FC7091299ACA@virtualized.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC778@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FD22EDC.5080106@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EC995@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FD2E3C7.8000906@itforchange.net> <4FD2E816.1060 909@itforchange.net> <20120609172354.C43F8819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4703 242b-a4 3a-49df-a4f3-a18c598fed6a@email.android.com> <20120611103202.A96FB819F@quill.bollow.ch> <20120613133508.377E1819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FD9C2BC.608020 1@itforc hange.net> <2D38D026-4BF7-4C8E-AA9C-D74660BA81E5@virtualized.org> <476708296.28022.1339759739758.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d18> Message-ID: <2C91635B-CAFB-4C95-A983-F9A4386DDA9B@virtualized.org> Jean-Louis, On Jun 15, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > You are trying to convince those of us who have some concerns regarding the role of USG in Internet governance. > Actually, what I'm trying to do is provide accurate information in order to inform the discussion. I understand the concerns about the US role, having both heard them and argued them myself at various points in my career. However, if people are going to engage in discussions about "oversight" roles and who performs then, I don't think it particularly useful to base those discussions on myths, misunderstandings, and agenda-driven mis-statements. > However, somewhere your "optimism" is bordering on angelism, since some of us still have in mind Echelon, the worldwide US spying system that you may ignore. If you have some time left please read Duncan Campbell's articles upon this theme and the COMINT Report to the European Parliament whose Temporrairy Committee concluded on the validity of the suspicion about the actual role of Echelon as a vector of the US Intelligence. > Sorry, I don't see the relevance between the existence of Echelon and "oversight" of ICANN. If you are arguing that the existence of communications intelligence capabilities and/or spies is reason for disqualification of the USG from an oversight role then I suspect finding qualifying countries might be a bit challenging. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Jun 15 11:08:33 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:08:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <20120615115940.9C710819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120615115940.9C710819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6733BE59-4C4C-4F10-B07E-31BDECEB0DB7@virtualized.org> Norbert, On Jun 15, 2012, at 4:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > some of what > the USG has in fact inflicted on people outside the US are things > where --if these things had not in fact happened-- I would have > described the idea as a non-factual horror that a government which > is democratic and strongly committed to human rights might take > such actions I'm curious: what actions (relative to the USG role in management of global Internet resources) are you referencing here? > What are in your view realistic scenarios that the oversight function for ICANN should protect us from? Ones in which ICANN has violated either existing policies and processes or policies and processed defined by its own open, transparent, accountable, and inclusive definition mechanisms. For example, back in the early days, ICANN tried to force ccTLD admins to enter into contracts for root zone management by refusing to process zone management requests until those contracts were signed. ICANN was appropriately slapped by the USG for that violation of existing policies and processes. 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 14:42:16 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:42:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I really dont find any real difference between what I said you say, and what you claim you say. Ok, lets say, you think US law is the best form of political oversight, given the present circumstances. [Milton L Mueller] Ah, now I see why what I am saying drives you crazy. You are confusing two fundamentally different things: "political oversight" and the law ICANN is incorporated under. Political accountability has less to do with which jurisdiction ICANN is incorporated in than you think. The best form of _political_ oversight is ICANN's own MS processes, which are transnational, assuming we make the Board more accountable through a better appeals process and membership. In other words, the polity is global, and political accountability means that ICANN makes and enforces policies that its global constituents want, that its representative processes are actually representative and its elected officials get thrown out if they do the wrong things. California corporation law is merely a mechanism for giving it a legal personality and making it follow certain procedural rules. Yes, it does make a difference that it is in the US rather than, say, Luxembourg or Tanzania, but that should not affect the policies it adopts through its own processes. Once you cut the cord to the US Commerce Department, the fact that it obtains its legal personality in California is not all that relevant. You are saying US law is more accessible and offers better accountability than international law to non US people!!! What a high-handed claim to make! [Milton L Mueller] nothing is more high-handed and inaccessible than international law, my friend. When have you ever used international law to do anything important for yourself or other people? I see a few African dictators convicted of war crimes by the ICJ 10 years and millions and millions of dollars in court costs after the fact. Are you sure you will like to seen saying that kind of a 'silly' thing (a term you use often :) ). May we just have the basic decency to ask non US people if this is what they think :). [Milton L Mueller] Sure. Ask anyone you like. But provide a real basis for comparison, i.e., the comparison is about legal personality and not political oversight, and don't wriggle out of the issue by contrasting US law with something that doesn't exist. I propose a multiple-choice survey question to be circulated among multinational domain name service operators located in developing world countries: Would you prefer that ICANN be incorporated under a) California corporation law, b) an unspecified international organization host country agreement developed by a collection of governments guided by a new international treaty you don't know the content of, which hasn't been tested in adjudication, and which won't be in place for 10 years; c) Indian corporation law d) Chinese corporation law e) Russian Corporation law or e) the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Go ahead and ask. I'd be as interested in the results as you. We'd all probably learn something. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 14:49:11 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:49:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189975@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet through the new ITRs? From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia, A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 15 15:00:36 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:00:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48316219@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1405CA82FA2C4A15BA2A0B547D4BD34B@UserVAIO>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E04@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48316219@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189A55@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Obsoleted by events? Surely you are joking. The article came out when the AoC was written, and the AoC has not changed at all since then. The analysis of it - which was not entirely negative - has been proven right on target. E.g., there is simply no argument with the fact that the Review teams are "ICANN reviewing itself." There is no change in the fact that the Review Team recommendations are just that: advice to the Board, and thus provide no external accountability on the Board. The Review Teams, as predicted, are simply reproductions of the existing political complexion of ICANN, and thus voices who are already overrepresented/underrepresented in ICANN are the same in the Review Teams. The Whois Review Team simply took the US/trademark/large corporation lobby's demand for surveillance of domain name users and made them a permanent part of ICANN. Don't get me wrong: as the article said, the AoC was a step forward because it allowed us to get rid of the JPA/MoU and its horrific renewal process, which made ICANN potentially a political plaything in Washington. And it is not a bad idea to have review teams, and some of the review teams have produced good reports. But they are not a solution to the accountability issues of ICANN, and they are not the answer to the structural issues being debated here (IANA contract, US control, accountability, GAC, etc.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:53 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller; 'michael gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] "Oversight" > > Milton, > > the blog entry from almost three years ago you on which you invite > comment has mostly been obsoleted by events. Several of them, including > the actual performance of the reviews, have proven that the fear of > deviation to top-down is unfounded. The community has proven that it is > wise and strong enough to avoid it. > > 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 Milton L Mueller > [mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: jueves, 14 de junio de 2012 11:00 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'michael gurstein' > Asunto: RE: [governance] "Oversight" > > > -----Original Message----- > > I would be very interested if you (or others) could point to more > > detailed descriptions/analyses of this approach. > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2009/09/30/taking-a-hard-look-at-the- > affirmation/ > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 15 15:01:27 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:01:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189975@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1339786887.80514.YahooMailClassic@web171102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I think this is crazy!!! I am afraid in the nearest future, email communication will be banished in Ethiopia. We should take this issue to a higher level. lets keep on pondering on how to isolate this law. people should be allowed to communicate what ever the context is. Excel Asama President/CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAl Box 13040 Douala Cameroom T: =237 33 76 55 76 W: www.ivission.net --- En date de : Ven 15.6.12, Milton L Mueller a écrit : De: Milton L Mueller Objet: RE: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP À: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Wilson Abigaba" Date: Vendredi 15 juin 2012, 18h49 How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet through the new ITRs?   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP   I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia,    A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently   http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243     -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 15 15:06:37 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:06:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189A77@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > I thought WCIT was a vote, not consensus. [Milton L Mueller] It is my understanding that Member states can take reservations against anything they object to. > I know that you and the NYT have told me I need have no concern, but for > now I just don't see it that way. [Milton L Mueller] I am getting tired of this game. No one said there was no need for concern. ISOC and the USG are now paying the price for exaggerating and distorting the real concerns. What people are saying is that fears of a concerted and systematic takeover of all of Internet governance by the ITU are being exaggerated, and the idea that the WCIT is fundamentally about censorship and taking control of Internet governance generally and CIRs specifically, are simply wrong. Read my entire blog series if you want to see what I think the real concerns are. And as many people are now saying, it can be dangerous to exaggerate the fears and to misidentify the real concerns. If you go into WCIT all ginned up about protocols and it's really about charging mechanisms that you don't understand, you are going to be ineffective. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 15:59:39 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:59:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Lone Senator Blocks Renewal of NSA Wiretap Program Message-ID: <4FDB942B.9010200@gmail.com> [Just 1!... ] Lone Senator Blocks Renewal of NSA Wiretap Program By David Kravets, Wired 15 June 12 he Obama administration wanted a quick, no-questions-asked-or-answered renewal of broad electronic eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. That’s despite President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to revisit and revise the rules to protect Americans’ rights. Everything seemed to be going to plan after a Senate committee approved the re-authorization in secret last month. But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has stepped in to stop the bill because the government refuses to say how often the spy powers are being used. Wyden has barred the Senate from a routine vote using a little-used legislative power - called a hold - to block lawmakers from taking a procedural consent vote. Instead, he demands a floor debate that can draw out the approval process indefinitely via the filibuster. Wyden did the same thing a year ago with the Protect IP Act. That legislation, which would have dramatically increased the government’s legal power to disrupt and shutter websites “dedicated to infringing activities,” subsequently died a loud death in January amid a turbulent internet backlash. The senator’s latest move targets the FISA Amendment Act. The legislation, expiring at year’s end, authorizes the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and emails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The Senate Intelligence Committee secretly approved the measure May 22 (.pdf) for a full floor vote, and released those results days ago. In response, Wyden placed a hold on the measure late Monday. Among other reasons, he said the government should disclose how many Americans’ communications have been intercepted under the law, which was adopted in 2008 as a way to legalize the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. “Before Congress votes to renew these authorities it is important to understand how they are working in practice,” Wyden said. “In particular, it is important for Congress to better understand how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected or reviewed under the authorities granted by the FISA Amendments Act.” Wyden asked the Obama administration a year ago for that information. The administration replied (.pdf) that it was “not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the FAA.” Wyden added that the law should be amended to prevent the government “from searching through these communications in an effort to find the phone calls or emails of a particular American, unless the government has obtained a warrant or emergency authorization permitting surveillance of that American.” He and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) proposed that amendment last month, and it failed. The FISA Amendments Act generally requires the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to rubber-stamp terror-related electronic surveillance requests that target Americans’ communications. The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public. The House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security debated the measure last month and appeared willing to side with the Obama administration’s demands that lawmakers re-authorize the bill, as the Senate Intelligence committee did. The Senate’s measure extends the powers until June 1, 2017. The House committee has not moved its measure to the floor for a full vote. Then-senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama voted for the measure in 2008, though he said the bill was flawed and that he would push to amend it if elected. Instead, Obama, as president, simply continued the Bush administration’s legal tactics aimed at crushing any judicial scrutiny of the wiretapping program, and his administration is now demanding that federal lawmakers extend the legislation. The Supreme Court next term is expected to hear a constitutional challenge to the law amid allegations it violates Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights. A Wyden spokeswoman said Thursday the senator might be willing to agree to a “short term” extension of the measure, instead of seeing the spy powers lapse, in a bid to give lawmakers more time to reach a deal. http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/11927-lone-senator-blocks-renewal-of-nsa-wiretap-program -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 15 18:34:33 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:34:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] BBC: May setting out plans to monitor internet use in UK In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189A77@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <4FD9DEBC.80809@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3e213383-5b4f-4b43-be60-9ab76a07b3cc@email.android.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189A77@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <90695007-37bb-4f28-aaf2-cfeac25c8459@email.android.com> Yes members states can make reservations. And if enough of them are doing that we may end up with ITR that apply only to a little over half of the world. that should work well for a unified Internet. But I know you are getting tired of this, so I will say little else. But, know, I don't consider it a game. avri Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I thought WCIT was a vote, not consensus. > >[Milton L Mueller] It is my understanding that Member states can take >reservations against anything they object to. > >> I know that you and the NYT have told me I need have no concern, but >for >> now I just don't see it that way. > >[Milton L Mueller] I am getting tired of this game. No one said there >was no need for concern. ISOC and the USG are now paying the price for >exaggerating and distorting the real concerns. What people are saying >is that fears of a concerted and systematic takeover of all of Internet >governance by the ITU are being exaggerated, and the idea that the WCIT >is fundamentally about censorship and taking control of Internet >governance generally and CIRs specifically, are simply wrong. Read my >entire blog series if you want to see what I think the real concerns >are. And as many people are now saying, it can be dangerous to >exaggerate the fears and to misidentify the real concerns. If you go >into WCIT all ginned up about protocols and it's really about charging >mechanisms that you don't understand, you are going to be ineffective. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 16 04:36:13 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:36:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189975@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189975@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2A309581-8FB0-476A-8498-E8389CF1FAE2@uzh.ch> MM This is an example of where your argument that ITU does not matter only national governments do sort of frays at the edges. The issue with the former is not just whether treaties get signed that have binding effect and are backed up by sanctioning mechanisms, and if they don't we can declare the organization to be a paper tiger and anyone who expresses concerns about it a witless dupe of corporate scare mongers. Like other international organizations, ITU is also a space in which a great deal of collective learning, community building, and decentralized policy convergence takes place. Long and iterative meetings are held and reports written on NGN, security, standards, accounting and settlements, whatever, and participants sit in a room and learn from peers and have to consider and explain what they are or aren't doing. Given the symmetry of interests among many players, the natural result is that ideas and information get taken back home and acted on, and by the next cycle of meetings they're able to report back that they're doing xyz to address the collectively identified issue and are therefore a member in good standing of the concerned community. And when enough governments, telcos and manufacturers start to do this on important issues, you can reach a point where policy spaces are being ordered, i.e. governed, on a decentralized basis with varying degrees of transnational consistency irrespective of the absence of a formally negotiated instrument. That's why the OECD matters a lot even when not negotiating agreements. Which is I guess a long winded way of saying economistic contractarian theories of international institutions miss much of the action that constructivist ones capture, and thereby present distorted pictures. In the particular case of VOIP restrictions, I attended the WTPF 2001 on Internet Telephony. The ITU had produced various backgrounders and meeting reports saying that it's a major challenge for national 'administrations' that——together with the GATS, FCC Benchmark Order, and new modes of operation (call-back, resale, refile and hubbing, country-direct, country-beyond, calling cards, international simple resale) was collapsing the accounting and settlement system and rapidly suppressing foreign exchange earnings. (Some in secretariat took the progressive line that reforms were needed to accommodate VOIP, but that was hardly a universal view in the membership.) This was building on long discussions in ITU-T looking into all these issues, as well as the WTPF in 1998 on trade in telecom. In this charged context, dozens of delegates at WTPF 2001 from across the developing world but particularly from Africa and the Middle East got up to say that they had adopted or were going to adopt bans on Internet telephony. Of course, restrictions weren't always easy to enforce, and one ITU study at the time summarized that 'in most developing countries, governments choose to block outgoing VOIP traffic while being unable to block incoming VOIP.' Subsequently, Skype took off and there was eventually some accommodation on revenue sharing for calls that break out into the PSTN, but a lot of countries' governments continued to take a rather dim view, and to talk to counterparts in ITU that felt the same. So all of this is just background, but it adds some context to the continuing propensity of some governments to periodically step out with self-defeating regulatory actions. In a tightly woven international system, no country is an island. And if the final WCIT text were to include some of the more problematic current proposals (e.g. declaring Internet to be telecom and subject to ITU instruments, applying the regulations to all 'operators,' defining and restricting 'misuse of number resources', making ITU a registry, requiring 'fair compensation' arrangements for IP traffic and yes, banning alternative calling arrangements) there'd be some countries that would take this as mandate for national policies and bilateral relations irrespective of whether OECD governments take broad Reservations. So if down the line more countries announce bans and regulations Internet-related activities that have been debated intensively for over a decade, I'm not entirely sure I'd declare that this has nothing to do with the ITU. Best, Bill   On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet through the new ITRs? > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP > > I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia, > > A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently > > http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From elgaelo at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 05:09:29 2012 From: elgaelo at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBl_Hernandez?=) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:09:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <2A309581-8FB0-476A-8498-E8389CF1FAE2@uzh.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189975@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2A309581-8FB0-476A-8498-E8389CF1FAE2@uzh.ch> Message-ID: What nobody is mentioning is that Sofrecom, a business consulting group owned by France Telecom-Orange, was asked by the Ethiopian Telecommunication Authority to provide interim management at least during 2011 - Google it, it's there. Did Sofrecom advice in this direction? Or did the contract finished and the regulator took its own initiative? Probably good to know before jumping into conclusions. Gaël On Jun 16, 2012 10:37 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > MM > > This is an example of where your argument that ITU does not matter only > national governments do sort of frays at the edges. The issue with the > former is not just whether treaties get signed that have binding effect and > are backed up by sanctioning mechanisms, and if they don't we can declare > the organization to be a paper tiger and anyone who expresses concerns > about it a witless dupe of corporate scare mongers. Like other > international organizations, ITU is also a space in which a great deal of > collective learning, community building, and decentralized policy > convergence takes place. Long and iterative meetings are held and reports > written on NGN, security, standards, accounting and settlements, whatever, > and participants sit in a room and learn from peers and have to consider > and explain what they are or aren't doing. Given the symmetry of interests > among many players, the natural result is that ideas and information get > taken back home and acted on, and by the next cycle of meetings they're > able to report back that they're doing xyz to address the collectively > identified issue and are therefore a member in good standing of the > concerned community. And when enough governments, telcos and manufacturers > start to do this on important issues, you can reach a point where policy > spaces are being ordered, i.e. governed, on a decentralized basis with > varying degrees of transnational consistency irrespective of the absence of > a formally negotiated instrument. That's why the OECD matters a lot even > when not negotiating agreements. Which is I guess a long winded way of > saying economistic contractarian theories of international institutions > miss much of the action that constructivist ones capture, and thereby > present distorted pictures. > > In the particular case of VOIP restrictions, I attended the WTPF 2001 on > Internet Telephony. The ITU had produced various backgrounders and meeting > reports saying that it's a major challenge for national 'administrations' > that——together with the GATS, FCC Benchmark Order, and new modes of > operation (call-back, resale, refile and hubbing, country-direct, > country-beyond, calling cards, international simple resale) was collapsing > the accounting and settlement system and rapidly suppressing foreign > exchange earnings. (Some in secretariat took the progressive line that > reforms were needed to accommodate VOIP, but that was hardly a universal > view in the membership.) This was building on long discussions in ITU-T > looking into all these issues, as well as the WTPF in 1998 on trade in > telecom. In this charged context, dozens of delegates at WTPF 2001 from > across the developing world but particularly from Africa and the Middle > East got up to say that they had adopted or were going to adopt bans on > Internet telephony. Of course, restrictions weren't always easy to > enforce, and one ITU study at the time summarized that ' in most developing > countries, governments choose to block outgoing VOIP traffic while being > unable to block incoming VOIP.' Subsequently, Skype took off and there > was eventually some accommodation on revenue sharing for calls that break > out into the PSTN, but a lot of countries' governments continued to take a > rather dim view, and to talk to counterparts in ITU that felt the same. > > So all of this is just background, but it adds some context to the > continuing propensity of some governments to periodically step out with > self-defeating regulatory actions. In a tightly woven international > system, no country is an island. And if the final WCIT text were to > include some of the more problematic current proposals (e.g. declaring > Internet to be telecom and subject to ITU instruments, applying the > regulations to all 'operators,' defining and restricting 'misuse of number > resources', making ITU a registry, requiring 'fair compensation' > arrangements for IP traffic and yes, banning alternative calling > arrangements) there'd be some countries that would take this as mandate for > national policies and bilateral relations irrespective of whether OECD > governments take broad Reservations. So if down the line more countries > announce bans and regulations Internet-related activities that have been > debated intensively for over a decade, I'm not entirely sure I'd declare > that this has nothing to do with the ITU. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > **** > How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet > through the new ITRs?**** > **** > ** ** > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Wilson Abigaba > *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP**** > ** ** > I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia, **** > ** ** > A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over > Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years > of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up > by international media until recently**** > ** ** > http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243**** > ** ** > ** ** > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 16 05:35:28 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:35:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hi Gael, After reading the article http://www.apanews.net/photo/fr/photo.php?id=136408  on France Telecom/Ethiopian Government deal, and knowing what France Telecom is up to in Africa, I may be convinced to believe that someone advised the Government of Ethiopia to criminalize VOIP. I am afraid my country Cameroon might run into similar disaster. The government owned Telecom Company is gradually running into private hands. How can we avert such situations in the future?  I understand that the ITU stands a better chance of governing the Internet provided some shortcomings are sorted out. Excel Asama President of I-ViSSIon international Box 13040 Douala-Cameroon Web: www.ivissoin.net --- En date de : Sam 16.6.12, Gaël Hernandez a écrit : De: Gaël Hernandez Objet: Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "William Drake" Date: Samedi 16 juin 2012, 9h09 What nobody is mentioning is that Sofrecom, a business consulting group owned by France Telecom-Orange, was asked by the Ethiopian Telecommunication Authority to provide interim management at least during 2011 - Google it, it's there. Did Sofrecom advice in this direction? Or did the contract finished and the regulator took its own initiative? Probably good to know before jumping into conclusions. Gaël On Jun 16, 2012 10:37 AM, "William Drake" wrote: MM This is an example of where your argument that ITU does not matter only national governments do sort of frays at the edges.  The issue with the former is not just whether treaties get signed that have binding effect and are backed up by sanctioning mechanisms, and if they don't we can declare the organization to be a paper tiger and anyone who expresses concerns about it a witless dupe of corporate scare mongers.  Like other international organizations, ITU is also a space in which a great deal of collective learning, community building, and decentralized policy convergence takes place.  Long and iterative meetings are held and reports written on NGN, security, standards, accounting and settlements, whatever, and participants sit in a room and learn from peers and have to consider and explain what they are or aren't doing.  Given the symmetry of interests among many players, the natural result is that ideas and information get taken back home and acted on, and by the next cycle of meetings they're able to report back that they're doing xyz to address the collectively identified issue and are therefore a member in good standing of the concerned community.  And when enough governments, telcos and manufacturers start to do this on important issues, you can reach a point where policy spaces are being ordered, i.e. governed, on a decentralized basis with varying degrees of transnational consistency irrespective of the absence of a formally negotiated instrument.  That's why the OECD matters a lot even when not negotiating agreements.  Which is I guess a long winded way of saying economistic contractarian theories of international institutions miss much of the action that constructivist ones capture, and thereby present distorted pictures. In the particular case of VOIP restrictions, I attended the WTPF 2001 on Internet Telephony.  The ITU had produced various backgrounders and meeting reports saying that it's a major challenge for national 'administrations' that——together with the GATS, FCC Benchmark Order, and new modes of operation (call-back, resale, refile and hubbing, country-direct, country-beyond, calling cards, international simple resale) was collapsing the accounting and settlement system and rapidly suppressing foreign exchange earnings.  (Some in secretariat took the progressive line that reforms were needed to accommodate VOIP, but that was hardly a universal view in the membership.)  This was building on long discussions in ITU-T looking into all these issues, as well as the WTPF in 1998 on trade in telecom.  In this charged context, dozens of delegates at WTPF 2001 from across the developing world but particularly from Africa and the Middle East got up to say that they had adopted or were going to adopt bans on Internet telephony.  Of course, restrictions weren't always easy to enforce, and one ITU study at the time summarized that ' in most developing countries, governments choose to block outgoing VOIP traffic while being unable to block incoming VOIP.'   Subsequently, Skype took off and there was eventually some accommodation on revenue sharing for calls that break out into the PSTN, but a lot of countries' governments continued to take a rather dim view, and to talk to counterparts in ITU that felt the same.   So all of this is just background, but it adds some context to the continuing propensity of some governments to periodically step out with self-defeating regulatory actions.  In a tightly woven international system, no country is an island.  And if the final WCIT text were to include some of the more problematic current proposals (e.g. declaring Internet to be telecom and subject to ITU instruments, applying the regulations to all 'operators,' defining and restricting 'misuse of number resources', making ITU a registry, requiring 'fair compensation' arrangements for IP traffic and yes, banning alternative calling arrangements) there'd be some countries that would take this as mandate for national policies and bilateral relations irrespective of whether OECD governments take broad Reservations.  So if down the line more countries announce bans and regulations Internet-related activities that have been debated intensively for over a decade, I'm not entirely sure I'd declare that this has nothing to do with the ITU. Best, Bill On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet through the new ITRs?   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP  I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia,    A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently   http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243    ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jun 16 07:02:39 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:02:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> Hi Thanks, this is very interesting. FT is also an important player in ITU and in ETNO, which as you may know is calling within the WCIT negotiations for the International Telecom Regulations to cover IP interconnection, and for all Operating Agencies (not just Administrations) to negotiate commercial agreements based on fair compensation and adequate return on investment for their telecommunications services, including sending party pays. Of course we can't jump to conclusions about what was advised by whom, but sometimes data points cluster in ways that, at a minimum, are interesting…. Best, Bill On Jun 16, 2012, at 11:35 AM, International Ivission wrote: > Hi Gael, > After reading the article http://www.apanews.net/photo/fr/photo.php?id=136408 > on France Telecom/Ethiopian Government deal, and knowing what France Telecom is up to in Africa, I may be convinced to believe that someone advised the Government of Ethiopia to criminalize VOIP. > > I am afraid my country Cameroon might run into similar disaster. The government owned Telecom Company is gradually running into private hands. > > How can we avert such situations in the future? I understand that the ITU stands a better chance of governing the Internet provided some shortcomings are sorted out. > > > > Excel Asama > > President of > > I-ViSSIon international > > Box 13040 Douala-Cameroon > > Web: www.ivissoin.net > > > --- En date de : Sam 16.6.12, Gaël Hernandez a écrit : > > De: Gaël Hernandez > Objet: Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP > À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "William Drake" > Date: Samedi 16 juin 2012, 9h09 > > What nobody is mentioning is that Sofrecom, a business consulting group owned by France Telecom-Orange, was asked by the Ethiopian Telecommunication Authority to provide interim management at least during 2011 - Google it, it's there. > > Did Sofrecom advice in this direction? Or did the contract finished and the regulator took its own initiative? > > Probably good to know before jumping into conclusions. > > Gaël > > On Jun 16, 2012 10:37 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > MM > > This is an example of where your argument that ITU does not matter only national governments do sort of frays at the edges. The issue with the former is not just whether treaties get signed that have binding effect and are backed up by sanctioning mechanisms, and if they don't we can declare the organization to be a paper tiger and anyone who expresses concerns about it a witless dupe of corporate scare mongers. Like other international organizations, ITU is also a space in which a great deal of collective learning, community building, and decentralized policy convergence takes place. Long and iterative meetings are held and reports written on NGN, security, standards, accounting and settlements, whatever, and participants sit in a room and learn from peers and have to consider and explain what they are or aren't doing. Given the symmetry of interests among many players, the natural result is that ideas and information get taken back home and acted on, and by the next cycle of meetings they're able to report back that they're doing xyz to address the collectively identified issue and are therefore a member in good standing of the concerned community. And when enough governments, telcos and manufacturers start to do this on important issues, you can reach a point where policy spaces are being ordered, i.e. governed, on a decentralized basis with varying degrees of transnational consistency irrespective of the absence of a formally negotiated instrument. That's why the OECD matters a lot even when not negotiating agreements. Which is I guess a long winded way of saying economistic contractarian theories of international institutions miss much of the action that constructivist ones capture, and thereby present distorted pictures. > > In the particular case of VOIP restrictions, I attended the WTPF 2001 on Internet Telephony. The ITU had produced various backgrounders and meeting reports saying that it's a major challenge for national 'administrations' that——together with the GATS, FCC Benchmark Order, and new modes of operation (call-back, resale, refile and hubbing, country-direct, country-beyond, calling cards, international simple resale) was collapsing the accounting and settlement system and rapidly suppressing foreign exchange earnings. (Some in secretariat took the progressive line that reforms were needed to accommodate VOIP, but that was hardly a universal view in the membership.) This was building on long discussions in ITU-T looking into all these issues, as well as the WTPF in 1998 on trade in telecom. In this charged context, dozens of delegates at WTPF 2001 from across the developing world but particularly from Africa and the Middle East got up to say that they had adopted or were going to adopt bans on Internet telephony. Of course, restrictions weren't always easy to enforce, and one ITU study at the time summarized that ' in most developing countries, governments choose to block outgoing VOIP traffic while being unable to block incoming VOIP.' Subsequently, Skype took off and there was eventually some accommodation on revenue sharing for calls that break out into the PSTN, but a lot of countries' governments continued to take a rather dim view, and to talk to counterparts in ITU that felt the same. > > So all of this is just background, but it adds some context to the continuing propensity of some governments to periodically step out with self-defeating regulatory actions. In a tightly woven international system, no country is an island. And if the final WCIT text were to include some of the more problematic current proposals (e.g. declaring Internet to be telecom and subject to ITU instruments, applying the regulations to all 'operators,' defining and restricting 'misuse of number resources', making ITU a registry, requiring 'fair compensation' arrangements for IP traffic and yes, banning alternative calling arrangements) there'd be some countries that would take this as mandate for national policies and bilateral relations irrespective of whether OECD governments take broad Reservations. So if down the line more countries announce bans and regulations Internet-related activities that have been debated intensively for over a decade, I'm not entirely sure I'd declare that this has nothing to do with the ITU. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> >> How could they possibly do this before the ITU has taken over the Internet through the new ITRs? >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Wilson Abigaba >> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 4:46 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP >> >> I think this is yet another dark day for internet users in Ethiopia, >> >> A new law in Ethiopia has criminalised the use of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) services such as Skype. Users could face up to 15 years of jail time. The law was passed May 24th, but the story wasn't picked up by international media until recently >> >> http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/ethiopia-skype-me-maybe-0022243 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sat Jun 16 09:22:04 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:22:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications In-Reply-To: <1339623875.74330.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1339623875.74330.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Here is the regional breakdown of the applications. LAC and Africa are so few. Rod said in the press conference 17 from Africa is encouraging and pleased to see that! izumi ------------- North America 911 Europe 675 Asia-Pacific 303 Latin America and the Caribbean 24 Africa 17 2012/6/14 Imran Ahmed Shah : > > Yes I called it highway as its still in development phase, as soon as the different resorts are developed and introduced on different layers, everyone will have opportunity to reserve the resort for a period of his choice according to his affordability. > > So, I refer it as a super highway on the Internet Clouds, not as an network infrastructure backbone. > > Thanks for your query. > > Imran > ------------------------------ >  On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 01:17 PKT Ian Peter wrote: > >  >Highway Construction? >  > >  >Looks like a muddle of laneways to me >  > >  > >  > >  > >  >> From: Imran Ahmed Shah >  >> Reply-To: , Imran Ahmed Shah >  >> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT) >  >> To: >  >> Subject: [governance] Big Day for New gTLD Applications >  >> >  >> >  >> I hope you will be interested about next step on the Internet Highway >  >> Construction: >  >> >  >> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200ut >  >> c-13jun12-en >  >> >  >> >  >> http://newgtlds-cloudfront.icann.org/sites/default/files/reveal/strings-1200ut >  >> c-13jun12-en.pdf >  >> >  >> Thanks >  >> >  >> Imran >  >> >  >> ____________________________________________________________ >  >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >  >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >  >> To be removed from the list, visit: >  >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >  >> >  >> For all other list information and functions, see: >  >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >  >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >  >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >  >> >  >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >  > >  > >  > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Jun 16 09:30:07 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] Google's CEO in Pakistan and the political use of technology? But dissidents are not safe! Message-ID: A few weeks after the Chief of ITU visited Pakistan and met with the President, the Google CEO was also on a quiet vist to Pakistan from 14th-15th June 2012 meeting with Political Parties, (pseudo) Activists and the Prime Minster and Chief Minister of Punjab basically visiting Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. There are mixed thoughts and responses about Mr. Eric's sudden visit especially post Dr Hamadoun Touré, ITU Secretary General's trip to Pakistan. The Google CEO's entourage was mostly composed of Public Policy staff and visited the usual suspects around the country. Despite visits by ITU and Google Chief's and the wonderful stories shared by the officials about ICT and Internet penetration and growth in Pakistan, the situation behind the scenes is bleak with how online content is being filtered, the silent measures being put in place with regards to censoring and blocking content, the lack of a pro-people national ICT/Internet public policy and the ongoing attempts to shutdown the Internet remain a continuous threat for online citizens as well as dissidents. "Dissidents in Pakistan are not safe, there is no guarantee of any kind of protection!". Last year, Google's CEO was concerned about the broad bans on online content by the Pakistani Authorities: "Google chief suspects ulterior motive in PakistanBy AFPPublished: May 22, 2010: http://www.tribune.com.pk/story/15287/google-chief-suspects-ulterior-motive-in-pakistan/ Media Sources: International Herald Tribune/Express Tribune http://tribune.com.pk/story/394128/gilani-seeks-googles-help-in-tracking-cross-border-movement/ Associated Press of Pakistan http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=198697&Itemid=2 RT: http://www.rt.com/news/pakistan-google-terrorist-gilani-913/ Blog Source: http://propakistani.pk/2012/06/15/eric-schmidt-chairman-google-quietly-visits-pakistan/ Political Party Meets: http://www.thenewstribe.com/2012/06/16/pti-team-meets-googles-eric-schmidt-over-political-use-of-technology/#.T9yBtSstjmk -- Regards. -------------------------- Foo -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 16 17:24:52 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:24:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: My personal view is that each context is different and has unique challenges. In this instance, Ethiopia Telecommunication Corporation is licensed to provide the following:- - Public Switched Telecommunication Service - GSM 900 MHz Mobile Telecommunication Service - Internet Service - Digital Data Communication Of the 153 countries ranked in the 2011 IDI ranks as 151 which is very low. Ethiopia is also classified as a low income economy. Ethiopia is considered as the second most populous country in Africa and this affects issues of "accessibility" and teledensity. They are also dealing with their Financial Crisis and there is a Study on the Impact on Human Development by the UNFPA. The World Bank Ethiopia Director, Ken Ohashi is reported by Bloomberg in 2011 to have said that Ethiopia's dependence on foreign capital to finance budget deficits and a five year investment plan is unsustainable. According to the Bloomberg article, telecommunications is owned by the State, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/ethiopia-s-investment-plan-may-be-unsustainable-world-bank-official-says.html . The challenges of having a sole provider of telecommunications. Is the market liberalised? Are there incentives for liberalisation. Liberalisation of markets aside - if VOIP is banned, the first thing that comes to mind is the inference that the conflict lies between providing affordable access and operating a business where the bottom line helps to increase "access". The Internet Governance Forum is an excellent place that allows developing countries like Ethiopia who rank very poorly on the IDI to be able to mingle and discuss history of growth of telecommunications with others from around the world who are at different stages in development. They may be inspired to figure our creative and innovative ways and means to advance access and also give room for innovation and sustainability of business models. This is why collaboration and the rich sharing of information and resources through dialogue. It is normal and usual for people to be in their comfortable cliques at some of these forums. The rich diversity of the global landscape and terrain and its challenges truly make the world a diverse place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 16 21:40:10 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:40:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, 12 years ago 70 countries banned voice over Internet; I don't have the current numbers but Ethiopia isn't the only nation to still declare voice over Internet illegal. It is however reversing the general trend of relaxing such bans, for Ethiopia to be passing new legislation. Even if as many have noted, in countries with official 'bans' VoIP services like Skype are widely used. Some of you may be amused by my presentation to an ITU workshop, attended by the secretary general, entitled 'How to Regulate a Platypus.' http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf In which I suggested such efforts were bound to fail, and that it would not to easy to 'kill the duck.' Now to our present concerns: ITU actions can indeed legitimate actions which I would argue are not in the interests of a nation's citizens, but may be in the interests of a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a national telecom provider. Which is reason enough to remain - observant - of what WCIT is up to, in all areas. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Cc: International Ivission; Gaël Hernandez Subject: Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP My personal view is that each context is different and has unique challenges. In this instance, Ethiopia Telecommunication Corporation is licensed to provide the following:- * Public Switched Telecommunication Service * GSM 900 MHz Mobile Telecommunication Service * Internet Service * Digital Data Communication Of the 153 countries ranked in the 2011 IDI ranks as 151 which is very low. Ethiopia is also classified as a low income economy. Ethiopia is considered as the second most populous country in Africa and this affects issues of "accessibility" and teledensity. They are also dealing with their Financial Crisis and there is a Study on the Impact on Human Development by the UNFPA. The World Bank Ethiopia Director, Ken Ohashi is reported by Bloomberg in 2011 to have said that Ethiopia's dependence on foreign capital to finance budget deficits and a five year investment plan is unsustainable. According to the Bloomberg article, telecommunications is owned by the State, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/ethiopia-s-investment-plan-may-be-unsustainable-world-bank-official-says.html. The challenges of having a sole provider of telecommunications. Is the market liberalised? Are there incentives for liberalisation. Liberalisation of markets aside - if VOIP is banned, the first thing that comes to mind is the inference that the conflict lies between providing affordable access and operating a business where the bottom line helps to increase "access". The Internet Governance Forum is an excellent place that allows developing countries like Ethiopia who rank very poorly on the IDI to be able to mingle and discuss history of growth of telecommunications with others from around the world who are at different stages in development. They may be inspired to figure our creative and innovative ways and means to advance access and also give room for innovation and sustainability of business models. This is why collaboration and the rich sharing of information and resources through dialogue. It is normal and usual for people to be in their comfortable cliques at some of these forums. The rich diversity of the global landscape and terrain and its challenges truly make the world a diverse place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sun Jun 17 05:09:48 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:09:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] Dr. Eric Schmidt, please don't advertise surveillance to Pakistan government Message-ID: <004801cd4c68$f4c392e0$de4ab8a0$@pk> In continuation to what Fouad shared earlier on the list, here is the public statement from Bytes for All, Pakistan. Best wihses and regards Shahzad Dr. Eric Schmidt, please don't advertise surveillance to Pakistan government http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/56 Islamabad, 17 June 2012: Google's Executive Chairman, Dr. Eric Schmidt met with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani on 14th June 2012. Both discussed various mutually beneficial projects that can be initiated in Pakistan with the help and in partnership with Google. As per news reports , the discussion took an interesting turn, when Prime Minister Gillani asked the Google Chairman to help use technology to "compile electronic data of cross-border movement between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which would in turn help tracking down terrorists" and Eric responded by saying that "building up and maintaining of databases through use of information technology was crucial to deal with security issues as well as law and order situation".* We are alarmed by the suggestion that Eric's visit to Pakistan appears to be linked to Google providing support to the Pakistani Government to increase surveillance of its citizens? The Pakistani Government is already notorious for the extent to which it violates citizen's privacy without due process. That a company like Google, renowned for its support for internet freedom, could be complicit in such violations of rights is very disturbing. How exactly does Google plan to do that? Google is a corporation that provides Internet-related products and services including Internet search engine, cloud computing, software and advertising technologies. Essentially Google's main business revolves around improving people's access to Internet and then selling advertisements. Another question then arise: how could Google commit to help a government with border security? Will it be through giving money for drones, mapping, more satellite coverage & monitoring or some other technological solution? Is it really in the business interest of Google to help build massive surveillance systems for nation states? Surely, not unless they can advertise to people crossing the border! It appears that Dr. Schmidt was caught off-guard in the discussions as the Google we know is an active member of Global Network Initiative , well known for its stance on Internet Rights , champion of Open Net and vocal advocate for Freedom of Expression online. We wish to believe that Google cannot actually provide the Pakistan government with surveillance support systems. It also cannot do a real time tracking of individuals across the border (unless Google is doing more than they claim to their global user base!). Bytes for All, Pakistan believes that an opportunity is lost and it is a big loss for the Internet Rights movement in the country. Eric could have educated Government of Pakistan, especially the Prime Minister on the global Internet Rights and Principles and how Open Net can revolutionize the development processes and trigger innovation for social justice in a country like Pakistan. Instead, Google Chief chose not to enlighten our Prime Minister by sharing his vast knowledge and experience and rather delved into the discussions on surveillance support systems. Considering all possibilities and unusual developments that continue to happen in Pakistan, Bytes for All earnestly requests Google to please not help or inspire our government build more surveillance systems. We also urge Eric to please clarify Google's position and to reaffirm its commitment to respecting and protecting human rights on the Internet. *Note: This public statement refers to the news reports published in the press after Eric's meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Our efforts to verify these discussion points between PM Gilani & Eric from the local Google team were not successful. So the purpose of the statement is to express alarm and demand clarification. --End-- Important background links and resources: * Gilani seeks Google's help in tracking cross-border movement * Global Network Initiative * Core Commitments - Global Network Initiative * APC Internet Rights Charter * APC Internet Rights Charter in Urdu * Google chief suspects ulterior motive in Pakistan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 17 09:02:01 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:32:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> On Saturday 16 June 2012 12:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I really dont find any real difference between what I said you say, > and what you claim you say. Ok, lets say, you think US law is the best > form of political oversight, given the present circumstances. > > */ /* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Ah, now I see why what I am saying drives you > crazy. /* > > *//* > > */ /* > > */You are confusing two fundamentally different things: "political > oversight" and the law ICANN is incorporated under./* > The law under which ICANN is incorporated can determine and limit what ICANN can do or not do. BTW, if it indeed does not so determine, and I have asked this question a thousand times, why then not let ICANN be incorporated under international law. Why do all the arguments change when we transit from US law to international law. And if you want to know of a practical instance; I was reading about the ICANN's decision last year to do away with registry-registrar cross ownership restriction (BTW a most retrogressive decision!), and I found frequent mentions of things like ' as we discussed with competition authorities'. First of all I would like to know from the people more closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I take it to be US government's because I know of no international level competition authority. Apparently, the inputs from US's competition authorities helped ICANN take this most retrograde decision. I think that competition authorities of many other countries - perhaps even of India- would not have advised in favour of such a bad decision, which as I would separately discuss, would now lead to privatisation of important bits digital lingua and work against competitive practices in the domain name industry. However, though the above shows how US laws and their application may indeed not be the best for ICANN, I simply refuse to get into this argument, whether British law (cant but be reminded of the colonial period) or US's or Japan's is better in some way than my own country's law or the international law. I simply refuse to be subject to any other country's laws, better or not. Period. Milton, can you honestly, say, if you were not a US citizen, you would have accepted such arguments in favour of subjecting an global infrastructure to US law? > */Political accountability has less to do with which jurisdiction > ICANN is incorporated in than you think. The best form of _political_ > oversight is ICANN's own MS processes, which are transnational, > assuming we make the Board more accountable through a better appeals > process and membership./* > I did ask you to propose the entire model for this, which then we may be able to discuss. > */ In other words, the polity is global, and political accountability > means that ICANN makes and enforces policies that its global > constituents want,/* > Here, again, Milton, I am unsure how exactly you see things. I have heard you say often that ICANN must not look at anything but technical, operational and financial criteria, and not get into public policy issues, which, although minimal, need to come from an external environment. Now, are you suggesting that ICANN directly does its public policy too? If so, please give more details about how this will work. > */that its representative processes are actually representative and > its elected officials get thrown out if they do the wrong things. > California corporation law is merely a mechanism for giving it a legal > personality /* > If it *merely* is to give ICANN legal personality, why cant we obtain that *mere* legal personality from international law, and do a host country agreement..... Would make so many people happy, no. > */and making it follow certain procedural rules. Yes, it does make a > difference that it is in the US rather than, say, Luxembourg or > Tanzania, but that should not affect the policies it adopts through > its own processes. Once you cut the cord to the US Commerce > Department, the fact that it obtains its legal personality in > California is not all that relevant. /* > Milton, you know that any US non profit, under contract with Dept of comm. or not, is subject to all laws, court diktats etc of the US... why are you glossing over this clear fact, which has been discussed so much here. > *//* > > */ /* > > You are saying US law is more accessible and offers better > accountability than international law to non US people!!! What a > high-handed claim to make! > > */[Milton L Mueller] nothing is more high-handed and inaccessible than > international law, my friend./* > Not more than US law for non US people??? When would US citizen learn to think a bit more globally, I mean think globally in a way that is decent to all. > */ When have you ever used international law to do anything important > for yourself or other people?/* > Havent used US law either. International law is used to configure national institutions in many good ways (national women machineries in many countries for instance). Now that we are confronted with the uniquely global phenomenon of the Internet, about which response would indeed need to be faster etc, we should be able to devise international law and institutions accordingly, In an earlier email, I mentioned how international trade law, and even private international arbitration on trade matters, is being increasingly and very frequently used (I know of so many cases involving India just over the last year). No reason why we cant make innovations in the IG space as well. > */ I see a few African dictators convicted of war crimes by the ICJ 10 > years and millions and millions of dollars in court costs after the > fact. /* > > */ /* > > Are you sure you will like to seen saying that kind of a 'silly' thing > (a term you use often :) ). May we just have the basic decency to ask > non US people if this is what they think :). > > */[Milton L Mueller] Sure. Ask anyone you like. But provide a real > basis for comparison, i.e., the comparison is about legal personality > and not political oversight, and don't wriggle out of the issue by > contrasting US law with something that doesn't exist. /* > Never the one to wriggle out, my friend. But cant see why what is not there cant be created.... we are taking about new international laws and institutions here, arent we. And while we are on the subject of comparing things with completely unknown and non existent things, you have been wriggling out of most internationalisation discussions by mentioning some very vague and unclear stuff about trans-nationalism. Perhaps you yourself are embarrassed to offer real next steps etc in this regard, so exotic the concept is, in many ways. On the other hand, I myself, with sympathy for pragmatic movement towards transnationalism, did suggest an oversight body with national or regional reps but looking at innovating how their selections process can be broadened within the systems that they come from. > *//* > > */ /* > > */I propose a multiple-choice survey question to be circulated among > multinational domain name service operators located in developing > world countries: /* > The constituency are *people*, not the industry that is regulated by ICANN. Many people close to ICANN seem to always get this thing wrong. And among people, in general, I am happy for you to do a survey if they prefer to be subject to their own country law, international law as required, and are happy to do with US law. Please stop selling US law. It isnt the best, while it would not have mattered even if it were. Democracy is quietly deeply engrained ideology and culture now a days, though, what happens and get said in IG spaces do keep alarming me... parminder > *//* > > */Would you prefer that ICANN be incorporated under /* > > */a) California corporation law, /* > > */b) an unspecified international organization host country agreement > developed by a collection of governments guided by a new international > treaty you don't know the content of, which hasn't been tested in > adjudication, and which won't be in place for 10 years; /* > > */c) Indian corporation law /* > > */d) Chinese corporation law /* > > */e) Russian Corporation law or /* > > */e) the International Court of Justice in the Hague./* > > */ /* > > */Go ahead and ask. I'd be as interested in the results as you. We'd > all probably learn something. /* *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 17 10:07:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:07:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Message-ID: If I am reading this below correctly... One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support for/weaken opposition to such developments. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi all, i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet governance issues. DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College propose. Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a "central control". From Introduction on Root DNS: " But its central control method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS architecture." From AIP DNS Architecture: "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent island in the world. -naif _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 17 10:07:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:07:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Message-ID: <710E593948C4439FB5F0792E2ADECDBA@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi all, i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet governance issues. DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College propose. Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a "central control". From Introduction on Root DNS: " But its central control method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS architecture." From AIP DNS Architecture: "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent island in the world. -naif _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 17 10:09:03 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:09:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Message-ID: <13D664BEE8814BBFBC3439D461BA6D6F@UserVAIO> If I am reading this below correctly... One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support for/weaken opposition to such developments. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi all, i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet governance issues. DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College propose. Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a "central control". From Introduction on Root DNS: " But its central control method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS architecture." From AIP DNS Architecture: "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent island in the world. -naif _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 17 13:28:00 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:28:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In the tradition of fools treading where angels don't dare, some comments inset. avri parminder wrote: > > >On Saturday 16 June 2012 12:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> I really dont find any real difference between what I said you say, >> and what you claim you say. Ok, lets say, you think US law is the >best >> form of political oversight, given the present circumstances. >> >> */ /* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] Ah, now I see why what I am saying drives you >> crazy. /* >> >> *//* >> >> */ /* >> >> */You are confusing two fundamentally different things: "political >> oversight" and the law ICANN is incorporated under./* >> > >The law under which ICANN is incorporated can determine and limit what >ICANN can do or not do. BTW, if it indeed does not so determine, and >I >have asked this question a thousand times, why then not let ICANN be >incorporated under international law. While I do not go so far as to agree with MM that there is no such thing as International Law, I would have to agree that there is little to no International contractual law. I do not think it is possible to create an international contract. All contracts, as far as I know are under national jurisdiction. (Like MM I am not a lawyer, don't play one on TV and dont even pretend to be one. I did however, have the misfortune to grow up the child of lawyers and lived at a law school while in high school where that is all ever any talked about, well almost. So it allow me the presumption necessary to make a fool of themselves while speaking of things beyond their ken.) To internationalize ICANN or any other body requires finding a country that will host the organization. Then it becomes a case of defining what authorities the organization repsonds to in various matterrs, sometimes it can be municipal jurisdiction in terms of local ordinace and labor practices, and sometime it can international tribuanls in terms of policy issues. > Why do all the arguments change >when we transit from US law to international law. > Since ICANN 'regualtes' (in so far as it admits to fulfilling a regulatory function), it dos so by the use of contracts. Since contracts only work within a national jurisdiction, we have a problem that needs to be solved in the process of internationalization. I think it can be done, but it will require cleverness and willingness. Unfortunately most of the cleverness is put to other purposes and willingness seems fleeting, when it does exist. >And if you want to know of a practical instance; I was reading about >the >ICANN's decision last year to do away with registry-registrar cross >ownership restriction (BTW a most retrogressive decision!), and I found > >frequent mentions of things like ' as we discussed with competition >authorities'. I was part of the process, so will give answers from my perspective. I should note that with a third person, I co-authored a proposal with MM that very much resembles the decision that was eventually made. This proposal can be found at: < https://community.icann.org/index.cgi?camv3 > So I do have a bias. Before judging the work, I do recommend that people go back and read the work: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsovertint/Vertical+Integration+PDP+Working+Group >First of all I would like to know from the people more >closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I >take it to be US government's because I know of no international level >competition authority I remember that several countries competition authorites were spoken to. I would have to go through records, which I am not inclined to do right now, to get the names of those countries. The US was certainly among them, but there were others. . > Apparently, the inputs from US's competition >authorities helped ICANN take this most retrograde decision. I disagree with it being regressive. The idea people like me had in mind was that there would be single owners of TLDs who should not have to pay a fee to some registrar, just to register internal names. The other concern was for IDNs, since there were not many IDN capable registrars, certainly none in developing areas, and since many of hoped there would be many IDN aplications (a hope that was dashed by the incredibly poor outreach ICANN did on the new gTLD program) we wanted to make sure that new IDN registries would not be held hostage to US based registrars. > I think >that competition authorities of many other countries - perhaps even of >India- would not have advised in favour of such a bad decision, which >as >I would separately discuss, would now lead to privatisation of >important >bits digital lingua and work against competitive practices in the >domain >name industry. > I look forward to your explanation. I do not remember whether they were anmong the ones consulted. I assume you will be consulting with the Indian competion authorities in preparing you anser, so it will be a good things. Most who were consulted told us that unless there was market power, they did not care. Of course we can have fun discussions about what market power rreally means >However, though the above shows how US laws and their application may >indeed not be the best for ICANN, I simply refuse to get into this >argument, whether British law (cant but be reminded of the colonial >period) or US's or Japan's is better in some way than my own country's >law or the international law. I simply refuse to be subject to any >other >country's laws, better or not. Period. Milton, can you honestly, say, >if >you were not a US citizen, you would have accepted such arguments in >favour of subjecting an global infrastructure to US law? > I am a US citizen, and would have no trouble with various other country's laws.. I can say that honestly. I would be very happy to have ICANN, e.g., ruled under EU privacy Law. Note - I am not saying I would accept anyone's law, but for me at least, this US citizen does not require US law to feel safe, in fact sometime US law often makes me feel distinctly unsafe, eg. patriot act and all the other insane security laws we are enacting by the bushel. >> */Political accountability has less to do with which jurisdiction >> ICANN is incorporated in than you think. The best form of _political_ > >> oversight is ICANN's own MS processes, which are transnational, >> assuming we make the Board more accountable through a better appeals >> process and membership./* >> > >I did ask you to propose the entire model for this, which then we may >be >able to discuss. > I know you did not ask me (though someone did), and I haven't proposed one, but I think the questions is a straw dog. I think the model has to be worked out in a multistakeholder way. I am sure I could not possibly accept a model that either you or MM hashed out, and would probably even have trouble with one you 2 agreed on.\ To ask an individual to provide a fully fleshed out model is yet nother polemic device, sounds good but ... >> */ In other words, the polity is global, and political accountability > >> means that ICANN makes and enforces policies that its global >> constituents want,/* >> > >Here, again, Milton, I am unsure how exactly you see things. I have >heard you say often that ICANN must not look at anything but technical, > >operational and financial criteria, and not get into public policy >issues, which, although minimal, need to come from an external >environment. Now, are you suggesting that ICANN directly does its >public >policy too? If so, please give more details about how this will work. > I am fine with genuine multistakeholder organizations to do policy. And I wait anxiously for the day when ICANN becomes one instead of just pretending to be one. >> */that its representative processes are actually representative and >> its elected officials get thrown out if they do the wrong things. >> California corporation law is merely a mechanism for giving it a >legal >> personality /* >> As you know I don't have much faith in representative democracy It can be bought with money, propoganda and fear. And bread and circuses. I like a particpatory model, which includes elements of representative, direct and advocratic democracy > >If it *merely* is to give ICANN legal personality, why cant we obtain >that *mere* legal personality from international law, and do a host >country agreement..... Would make so many people happy, no. > Here I agree with you. I just think we have a lot of details to work out. >> */and making it follow certain procedural rules. Yes, it does make a >> difference that it is in the US rather than, say, Luxembourg or >> Tanzania, but that should not affect the policies it adopts through >> its own processes. Once you cut the cord to the US Commerce >> Department, the fact that it obtains its legal personality in >> California is not all that relevant. /* >> > Again, I think I agree. >Milton, you know that any US non profit, under contract with Dept of >comm. or not, is subject to all laws, court diktats etc of the US... >why >are you glossing over this clear fact, which has been discussed so much > >here. > >> *//* >> >> */ /* >> >> You are saying US law is more accessible and offers better >> accountability than international law to non US people!!! What a >> high-handed claim to make! >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] nothing is more high-handed and inaccessible >than >> international law, my friend./* >> > (advice my mother did not give, but should have, never get in the middle an argument about who is being more high handed.) >Not more than US law for non US people??? When would US citizen learn >to >think a bit more globally, I mean think globally in a way that is >decent >to all. > Most people in the US don't know there is an global whatever. >> */ When have you ever used international law to do anything important > >> for yourself or other people?/* >> > International Law is the only thing that brings war criminals to heel. The law of the seas, another aspect on Internation al law has also been critical to many nation's well being - try telling US fishermen that the law of the seas is irrelevant. International law can be useful, in the instance of various empowered international tribunals, to resolve all finds of disputes. But it is a complicated field and can't just be accepted or dismissed in an IGC email exchange. It can work, but it is not as easy as using a legal package to create a contract. If ICANN were to be Internationalized, one of my fonder hopes for the future, it would need to be set up in a way that used the various instruments and tools that have been created over the years. But in essence, it would invovle creating a set of rules and conditions by which the organization would be run and the oversight mechansims that would be utilized to resolve conflicts and to deal with the times that the organzations rules and regualtions were not adhered to. It is true that when moving to Internatlionalization there is not a one size fits all set of rules that apply, the organization has to decide for itself what rules it will adhere to and the host country/countries have to agree that this is a sensible set of rules. >Havent used US law either. International law is used to configure >national institutions in many good ways (national women machineries in >many countries for instance). Now that we are confronted with the >uniquely global phenomenon of the Internet, about which response would >indeed need to be faster etc, we should be able to devise international > >law and institutions accordingly, In an earlier email, I mentioned how >international trade law, and even private international arbitration on >trade matters, is being increasingly and very frequently used (I know >of >so many cases involving India just over the last year). No reason why >we >cant make innovations in the IG space as well. > >> */ I see a few African dictators convicted of war crimes by the ICJ >10 >> years and millions and millions of dollars in court costs after the >> fact. /* >> This minimizes what has been achieved thorugh the use of the tools of international law. >> */ /* >> >> Are you sure you will like to seen saying that kind of a 'silly' >thing >> (a term you use often :) ). May we just have the basic decency to ask > >> non US people if this is what they think :). >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] Sure. Ask anyone you like. But provide a real >> basis for comparison, i.e., the comparison is about legal personality > >> and not political oversight, and don't wriggle out of the issue by >> contrasting US law with something that doesn't exist. /* >> > To set up the argument this way is an unreasonable polemic. International law exists. You may not recognize it, but that does not mean it does not exist, it just means you are not recognizing the rules that govern many things in the world you live. In fact even the US Constituion recognizes the authority of International law that the senate has agreed to. >Never the one to wriggle out, my friend. But cant see why what is not >there cant be created.... we are taking about new international laws >and >institutions here, arent we. And while we are on the subject of >comparing things with completely unknown and non existent things, you >have been wriggling out of most internationalisation discussions by >mentioning some very vague and unclear stuff about trans-nationalism. >Perhaps you yourself are embarrassed to offer real next steps etc in >this regard, so exotic the concept is, in many ways. On the other hand, > >I myself, with sympathy for pragmatic movement towards >transnationalism, >did suggest an oversight body with national or regional reps but >looking >at innovating how their selections process can be broadened within the >systems that they come from. > >> *//* >> >> */ /* >> >> */I propose a multiple-choice survey question to be circulated among >> multinational domain name service operators located in developing >> world countries: /* >> > >The constituency are *people*, not the industry that is regulated by >ICANN. Many people close to ICANN seem to always get this thing wrong. >And among people, in general, I am happy for you to do a survey if they > Well among the constituencies in ICANN, some are industry in some cases, and some are people and some are government. Of course it is only the ones that are composed of industry or government that get listened to. But that is another issue. >prefer to be subject to their own country law, international law as >required, and are happy to do with US law. Please stop selling US law. >It isnt the best, while it would not have mattered even if it were. >Democracy is quietly deeply engrained ideology and culture now a days, >though, what happens and get said in IG spaces do keep alarming me... >parminder > I do not see how anyone could sell US law as the best. Then again, I do not see how anoyone could sell any specific as the best. Sure we can pick a field in which some country's laws seem preferabllllllle to others. But a country that still executes people and calls corporations people in a legal sense could hardy be the top of the heap. This is not to mention the patriot act and sorts of other repressive regimes that allows the government to spy on it people. Or how about the riders to the defense act that allows for permanent adminstrative incarceration? Yeah US Law is the best is what universe? >> *//* >> >> */Would you prefer that ICANN be incorporated under /* >> >> */a) California corporation law, /* >> >> */b) an unspecified international organization host country agreement > >> developed by a collection of governments guided by a new >international >> treaty you don't know the content of, which hasn't been tested in >> adjudication, and which won't be in place for 10 years; /* >> >> */c) Indian corporation law /* >> >> */d) Chinese corporation law /* >> >> */e) Russian Corporation law or /* >> >> */e) the International Court of Justice in the Hague./* >> >> */ /* >> >> */Go ahead and ask. I'd be as interested in the results as you. We'd >> all probably learn something. /* *//* >> I take B. With recourse to E or some other appropriate International Tribunal. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jun 18 02:52:30 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:52:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> On 17.06.12 04:40, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Now to our present concerns: ITU actions can indeed legitimate actions > which I would argue are not in the interests of a nation's citizens, > but may be in the interests of a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a > national telecom provider. Which is reason enough to remain - > observant - of what WCIT is up to, in all areas. Whose concerns are almost guaranteed to represent private commercial "get rich" interests. History has it and I can certainly confirm observing it, that often the state owned telecom business is used to subsidize political parties, for such businesses often have extremely fuzzy accounting and very high margins -- and, for the most part steady cash flow guaranteed to last (with the help of ITU and various arrangements). In most cases, you will hear the claim "we do this in the name of the people", which should be in fact translated as "look, we promised those people who put us in power, that they are going to get free ride. we do it, no matter what". There are suggestions that the ITU is a "better" fit for the governance of Internet. Because, as they claim, the ITU has well-organized and disciplined resolution system. But, let me ask you: do you consider some well-organized army better suited to manage your country, by occupying it? (of course, this happens, all of the time, even today) The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 18 02:53:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:53:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:28:00 on Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >>First of all I would like to know from the people more >>closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I >>take it to be US government's because I know of no international level >>competition authority > >I remember that several countries competition authorites were spoken to. I would have to go through records, which I am not inclined to do >right now, to get the names of those countries. The US was certainly among them, but there were others. . This is not an answer to the question (or even a guess) but if anyone talks to the competition authorities in both Washington and Brussels (for the EU) then they've covered (by various economic measures) 2/3 of the world. If both of those think it's OK, and both are hard to please, then the proposal is probably OK. -- 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 Mon Jun 18 03:16:50 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:16:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> Hi Daniel On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). > Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) Is this a typo? It's obviously not you that'd get paid. They want foreign (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you downloaded using their apparently scarce bandwidth. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 18 03:39:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:39:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> Hi Maybe I'm misunderstanding Avri's account of their satisfaction level. My recollection that the USG and EC both provided paper saying the competition implications hadn't been worked through satisfactorily and the existing VI prohibitions should be maintained. They and the UK made the same arguments at the famous GAC/Board meeting in Singapore (where the EC rep deftly suggested, with respect to trademarks, that it was a 'discussion between the deaf and the stupid'…?) Not saying I disagree with the board's decision, but simply that the GAC wasn't overjoyed. Actually, the board's disagreement was a good affirmation of the model… Bill On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:28:00 on Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >>> First of all I would like to know from the people more >>> closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I >>> take it to be US government's because I know of no international level >>> competition authority >> >> I remember that several countries competition authorites were spoken to. I would have to go through records, which I am not inclined to do >> right now, to get the names of those countries. The US was certainly among them, but there were others. . > > This is not an answer to the question (or even a guess) but if anyone talks to the competition authorities in both Washington and Brussels (for the EU) then they've covered (by various economic measures) 2/3 of the world. > > If both of those think it's OK, and both are hard to please, then the proposal is probably OK. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 18 04:00:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:00:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4FDED02E.3030605 at digsys.bg>, at 09:52:30 on Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting >mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that >ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP >traffic. This is the so called D.50 concept. It won't die - several of us had a good try at putting it to sleep ten years ago, but the pressure needs keeping up. Here's one submission on why it's a bad thing, from the EU: -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 18 04:12:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:12:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B at uzh.ch>, at 09:16:50 on Mon, 18 Jun 2012, William Drake writes >>Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, >>because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) > >Is this a typo?  It's obviously not you that'd get paid.  They want >foreign (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you >downloaded using their apparently scarce bandwidth It's the one of the several (differing) concepts which gets called the "Network Neutrality" name from time to time, and comes down to the argument over "who pays" for a big download. Is it the information provider (Youtube, for example) because they don't have a business if people can't see their product, so they should be paying to have it delivered, just like Amazon pays to ship a book to you... Or should the viewer pay (via fees to his connectivity ISP), because he's the one who wants to receive the content. In the postal world it's long been accepted that the sender pays (even if he's using money he got from the customer by way of postage and packing fees). In the telephony world, the sender (in as much as the person who placed the call is a sender) pays. [With a few exceptions, like in some countries mobile users pay to receive calls]. So it's not a huge stretch to assume (whether wrongly or not) that the only reason the Internet isn't sender-pays is because no-one has been bothered to set up the accounting mechanism yet. And if it wasn't already complicated enough, very few 'viewers' pay monetary fees to content sites. Youtube is "free" (or at least, only costs you the few minutes of your time while you are forced to view adverts). -- 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Jun 18 04:14:58 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:14:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: For the record, the European Commission sent two letters asking for clarifications on the vertical integration between registries and registrar. You can find them (as well as the answers) here: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/eu-to-icann-17jun11-en.pdf (Commission to ICANN, 17 June 2011) http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-kroes-25oct11-en.pdf (ICANN to Commission, 25 October 2011) http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/de-graaf-mccallum-to-beckstrom-crocker-19jan12-en (Commission to ICANN, 19 January 2012) http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/beckstrom-to-de-graaf-mccallum-09mar12-en (ICANN to Commission, 9 March 2012) During the Costa Rica meeting, if I am not mistaken, I (as the representative of the European Commission in the GAC) also pointed out that the language used in the documents might suggest that the European Commission, in its role as the competition/antitrust authority in the EU, would be subject to deadlines set by ICANN to express an "opinion" on the possible anti-competitive effects of authorisations by ICANN to allow integration. I believe the US Department of Justice (Antitrust division) also sent a letter to ICANN, asking for clarifications. Best, Andrea On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:39 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding Avri's account of their satisfaction level.  My recollection that the USG and EC both provided paper saying the competition implications hadn't been worked through satisfactorily and the existing VI prohibitions should be maintained. They and the UK made the same arguments at the famous GAC/Board meeting in Singapore (where the EC rep deftly suggested, with respect to trademarks, that it was a 'discussion between the deaf and the stupid'…?) > > Not saying I disagree with the board's decision, but simply that the GAC wasn't overjoyed.  Actually, the board's disagreement was a good affirmation of the model… > > Bill > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 19:28:00 on Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >>>> First of all I would like to know from the people more >>>> closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I >>>> take it to be US government's because I know of no international level >>>> competition authority >>> >>> I remember that several countries competition authorites were spoken to.  I would have to go through records, which I am not inclined to do >>> right now, to get the names of those countries.  The US was certainly among them, but there were others. . >> >> This is not an answer to the question (or even a guess) but if anyone talks to the competition authorities in both Washington and Brussels (for the EU) then they've covered (by various economic measures) 2/3 of the world. >> >> If both of those think it's OK, and both are hard to please, then the proposal is probably OK. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 18 05:00:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:30:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FDEEE19.7000800@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 June 2012 07:37 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > If I am reading this below correctly... > > One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to > "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... > Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a > fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any > "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such > fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support > for/weaken opposition to such developments. > Exactly so, Mike. Those who have consistently refused to pay heed to the genuine concerns of developing countries, and somehow unilaterally decided that this is not the time for global agreements (which alone can save, or is it already could have saved, a global Internet), may hopefully now begin to realise their folly. When things were still open, and much of the processes and capabilities in non gov hands, was, and maybe still is, the best time to negotiate using this 'power' for a global open Internet. Even to have agreed to a few clear globally accepted principles for the Internet would have committed (or 'trapped) the major actors to a global Internet. For instance, I know, five or six years ago, even China was ready to come to the table to talk about some global principles, while now it simply refuses to have anything much to do even with a UN hearing on enhanced cooperation. People may remember the early days when China actually participated in the IGF with considerable enthusiasm. One can easily see the slide, and I think many apparently good thinking people (CS, generally) need also to take a good part of the responsibility for this. Am reminded what I once read in a novel - the world was never saved by its good people, because the good people wont go to the lengths needed to save the world. parminder > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio > Pietrosanti (naif) > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM > To: Liberation Technologies > Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > Hi all, > > i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should > make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet > governance issues. > > DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 > > This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile& Guangdong Commercial College > propose. > > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the > world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a > "central control". > > From Introduction on Root DNS: > " But its central control > method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up > with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, > owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in > Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the > technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS > architecture." > > From AIP DNS Architecture: > "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous > Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize > possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the > foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." > > So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative > internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent > island in the world. > > -naif > _______________________________________________ > liberationtech mailing list > liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu > > Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click > above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily > digest?" > > You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator > in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. > > Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 18 05:05:18 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:05:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> Bill, I did not say it was the GAC that was contacted, though various members were. They are not the competition authorities. As for my answer not being good enough for Perry, oh well guess i will have to live with that. I was not the one who checked and my partners in the proposal would be the ones who have the specifics, but somehow Perry's way of putting it does not motivate me to go check. On the other hand, I do remember that we made our proposal some of the competion authorities consulted said they could not do things in the time frames we wanted (we included a step in the application process if I remember correctly). But this requirement was left out of the Board's decsion (in fact the Board never admitted any relationship between our proposal and their decsion - they took all of the cruft from the VI group and then decided appropriately) I also rembered that I wasn't as concerned about this as my co-authors as I figure anti-competative bahavior was their job and if there were complaints, they would deal with thm. In any case, very few of the Registries or Registrars have controlling market share on the international stage, maybe one of each, so the point is rather moot. And on the national stage, many ccTLDs may have controling market share (I dont know but it seems possible - if anyone does, they do), but that is not what we are talking about. avri William Drake wrote: >Hi > >Maybe I'm misunderstanding Avri's account of their satisfaction level. >My recollection that the USG and EC both provided paper saying the >competition implications hadn't been worked through satisfactorily and >the existing VI prohibitions should be maintained. They and the UK made >the same arguments at the famous GAC/Board meeting in Singapore (where >the EC rep deftly suggested, with respect to trademarks, that it was a >'discussion between the deaf and the stupid'…?) > >Not saying I disagree with the board's decision, but simply that the >GAC wasn't overjoyed. Actually, the board's disagreement was a good >affirmation of the model… > >Bill > >On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , >at 19:28:00 on Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >>>> First of all I would like to know from the people more >>>> closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. >I >>>> take it to be US government's because I know of no international >level >>>> competition authority >>> >>> I remember that several countries competition authorites were spoken >to. I would have to go through records, which I am not inclined to do >>> right now, to get the names of those countries. The US was >certainly among them, but there were others. . >> >> This is not an answer to the question (or even a guess) but if anyone >talks to the competition authorities in both Washington and Brussels >(for the EU) then they've covered (by various economic measures) 2/3 of >the world. >> >> If both of those think it's OK, and both are hard to please, then the >proposal is probably OK. >> -- >> 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Jun 18 05:17:06 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:17:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] OSCE Internet Freedom conference / started & being live streamed Message-ID: OSCE Internet Freedom conference is taking place today. You can follow it live online at this URL - http://www.osce.org/event/internetfreedom2012 Conference is being live tweeted - @netfreedom2012 & #dcif regards Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Jun 18 05:24:45 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <1633863954.19492.1340011485582.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f25> Are you just debarking from an exo-planet ?   Never heard of ITU as a multilateral UN agency, whose policy making/deciding members are its Member States ? (That means that its positions/actions may aim to the interest of its Member States, i.e.sovereign entities)   And probably never heard of policies which could aim to common, public interest ?   Or are these concepts out of age for you ?   Best   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 18/06/12 08:52 > De : "Daniel Kalchev" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP > > > > On 17.06.12 04:40, Lee W McKnight wrote: Now to our present concerns: ITU actions can indeed legitimate actions which I would argue are not in the interests of a nation's citizens, but may be in the interests of a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a national telecom provider. Which is reason enough to remain - observant - of what WCIT is up to, in all areas. > > Whose concerns are almost guaranteed to represent private commercial "get rich" interests. > > History has it and I can certainly confirm observing it, that often the state owned telecom business is used to subsidize political parties, for such businesses often have extremely fuzzy accounting and very high margins -- and, for the most part steady cash flow guaranteed to last (with the help of ITU and various arrangements). > > In most cases, you will hear the claim "we do this in the name of the people", which should be in fact translated as "look, we promised those people who put us in power, that they are going to get free ride. we do it, no matter what". > > There are suggestions that the ITU is a "better" fit for the governance of Internet. Because, as they claim, the ITU has well-organized and disciplined resolution system. But, let me ask you: do you consider some well-organized army better suited to manage your country, by occupying it? (of course, this happens, all of the time, even today) > > The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). > Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 18 05:44:39 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:44:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <1633863954.19492.1340011485582.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f25> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <1633863954.19492.1340011485582.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f25> Message-ID: <4d93ad3c-3ed3-47ce-a1fc-6d332196794c@email.android.com> Hi, To my reading you just proved his point. Except for a very small percentage of Sovriegn States, as far as I can tell mostly they are avaricious power grabbing entities that only make a pretense of caring for their people. Why would people ever want to entrust the wellbeing of a system as critical as the Interent to such entities alone. Yes they have a role in the mutistakeholder process, but as the sole enntity, that would be Internet suicide. As for multi-lateral, I interpret that to mean they conspire together for wealth and power. Yes, for as long as people are the nasty creatures we are, states remain an necessarry evil, but there is no reason to entrust them with the tools of freedom and progress. I am assuming tha what Ethiopian and FT have done to consipre with each other to deprive the Ethiopian people with a goood communications tool was perfectly ok with the ITU. Am I wrong about that? avri Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >Are you just debarking from an exo-planet ? > >  > >Never heard of ITU as a multilateral UN agency, whose policy >making/deciding members are its Member States ? (That means that its >positions/actions may aim to the interest of its Member States, >i.e.sovereign entities) > >  > >And probably never heard of policies which could aim to common, public >interest ? > >  > >Or are these concepts out of age for you ? > >  > >Best > >  > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > >> Message du 18/06/12 08:52 >> De : "Daniel Kalchev" >> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Copie à : >> Objet : Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP >> >> >> >> On 17.06.12 04:40, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >Now to our present concerns: ITU actions can indeed legitimate actions >which I would argue are not in the interests of a nation's citizens, >but may be in the interests of a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a >national telecom provider. Which is reason enough to remain - observant >- of what WCIT is up to, in all areas. >> > > >> Whose concerns are almost guaranteed to represent private commercial >"get rich" interests. >> >> History has it and I can certainly confirm observing it, that often >the state owned telecom business is used to subsidize political >parties, for such businesses often have extremely fuzzy accounting and >very high margins -- and, for the most part steady cash flow guaranteed >to last (with the help of ITU and various arrangements). >> >> In most cases, you will hear the claim "we do this in the name of the >people", which should be in fact translated as "look, we promised those >people who put us in power, that they are going to get free ride. we do >it, no matter what". >> >> There are suggestions that the ITU is a "better" fit for the >governance of Internet. Because, as they claim, the ITU has >well-organized and disciplined resolution system. But, let me ask you: >do you consider some well-organized army better suited to manage your >country, by occupying it? (of course, this happens, all of the time, >even today) >> >> The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting >mechanism to Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that >ITU could enforce bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP >traffic. Remember, this is precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the >(primitive at the time) competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, >SMTP, ...). >> Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, >because they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) >> >> Daniel >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 18 06:09:42 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:09:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> Message-ID: <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> Hi On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I did not say it was the GAC that was contacted, though various members were. They are not the competition authorities. Sure Avri, didn't say you had. But the competition authorities seem to have communicated with their respective GAC reps, and the message didn't seem to be ok fine by us. On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > For the record, the European Commission sent two letters asking for > clarifications on the vertical integration between registries and > registrar. Thanks Andrea. Further to your point, just had a look at the Singapore meeting transcript http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/icann-gac-board-transcript. A few quotes: on trademarks >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: We have had this discussion and it seems to be a discussion between the deaf and the stupid, in a way. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, it's. >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: There's no point in going through this discussion again. >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If they both have to do the same thing -- >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Why don't you take the European trademark regime and make that the model for the rest of the world. on VI >>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: ...We have set out in that submission that there are important concerns and a need for clarifications and further substantiation of the reversal of policy to allow vertical integration. I'm not clear, like my U.K. colleague, how the ICANN board is take this into account….I think an important request to ICANN was that this fundamental decision should be disassociated from the launch of the gTLD program….the main question now is to hear from the ICANN board how it will take into account the concerns set out in our letter and the request to disassociate the decision on the competition registry/registrar issue from the launch of the new gTLD program...We consider it preferable to disassociate such a fundamental decision from the new gTLD launch process and maintain for the time being and subject to the gathering of further data the existing rules on vertical separation between registries and registrars for both new and existing gTLDs subject to limited exceptions for clearly pro competitive cases. So the question I put to you earlier, and I think I am putting it to you even more clearly now, is how are you going to respond to this particular request? Are you disassociating it from the launch of the new gTLDs or are you sticking to your position or have you modified your position in light of the elements that have been put to your attention?... ...I find it interesting that the ICANN board members think that they have more knowledge about the competition than the competition authorities... I mean, in the submission of the European Commission is the point I made at the beginning, we advise the ICANN board not to go ahead with this. That's what we advise. It is still the advice of the European Commission after the clarifications given by the ICANN board this evening. >>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just wanted to flag at least one sentence in the Department of Justice anti-trust division letter because I am also hopeful that we will have a written response. Certainly not today, but we will get a response in writing. And there is a fairly direct sentence in here that says, "In the division's view, ICANN should retain its prohibition on vertical integration for existing gTLDs except in cases where ICANN, in consultation with public and private sector stakeholders and independent analysts, determines that the registry does not have or is unlikely to obtain market power." So there are quite a few recommendations that follow that, and it would be useful to get your views as to how you might want to follow- up on those recommendations. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 18 06:19:39 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:19:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> Message-ID: In message <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46 at email.android.com>, at 11:05:18 on Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >As for my answer not being good enough for Perry I intended to convey that my reply wasn't an answer (and therefore shouldn't be construed as a criticism of your own response). It was supposed to be a generally helpful comment about who an organisation might go to in order to get a reasonably comprehensive view on competition issues, without having to trek round 172 countries. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 06:21:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:21:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Daniel > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to > Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce > bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is > precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) > competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). > Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because > they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) > > > Is this a typo?  It's obviously not you that'd get paid.  They want foreign > (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you downloaded > using their apparently scarce bandwidth. I assumed Daniel was speaking from a providers (ISP) POV. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 18 06:37:48 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:37:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <27aa1b86-41f0-40fe-b1fb-7606486334be@email.android.com> Hi, I notice the quote from the US does speak about exsting TLDs when was VI removed from existing TLDs. I might have missed that. And asking for it to be diassocoated form the new gTLD was nonsensical since that would have had it affecting the exsting gTLDs. In any case, it eas advice and it was rejected with reasons give. As you said Bill, that is the way it should be when the advice makes no sense. avri William Drake wrote: >Hi > >On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> I did not say it was the GAC that was contacted, though various >members were. They are not the competition authorities. > >Sure Avri, didn't say you had. But the competition authorities seem to >have communicated with their respective GAC reps, and the message >didn't seem to be ok fine by us. > > >On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> For the record, the European Commission sent two letters asking for >> clarifications on the vertical integration between registries and >> registrar. > > >Thanks Andrea. Further to your point, just had a look at the Singapore >meeting transcript >http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/icann-gac-board-transcript. A few >quotes: > >on trademarks > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: We have had this discussion and it seems to be a >discussion between the deaf and the stupid, in a way. > >>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, it's. > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: There's no point in going through this >discussion again. > >>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If they both have to do the same thing -- > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Why don't you take the European trademark regime >and make that the model for the rest of the world. > >on VI > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: ...We have set out in that submission that there >are important concerns and a need for clarifications and further >substantiation of the reversal of policy to allow vertical integration. >I'm not clear, like my U.K. colleague, how the ICANN board is take this >into account….I think an important request to ICANN was that this >fundamental decision should be disassociated from the launch of the >gTLD program….the main question now is to hear from the ICANN board how >it will take into account the concerns set out in our letter and the >request to disassociate the decision on the competition >registry/registrar issue from the launch of the new gTLD program...We >consider it preferable to disassociate such a fundamental decision from >the new gTLD launch process and maintain for the time being and subject >to the gathering of further data the existing rules on vertical >separation between registries and registrars for both new and existing >gTLDs subject to limited exceptions for clearly pro competitive cases. >So the question I put to you earlier, and I think I am putting it to >you even more clearly now, is how are you going to respond to this >particular request? Are you disassociating it from the launch of the >new gTLDs or are you sticking to your position or have you modified >your position in light of the elements that have been put to your >attention?... > >...I find it interesting that the ICANN board members think that they >have more knowledge about the competition than the competition >authorities... I mean, in the submission of the European Commission is >the point I made at the beginning, we advise the ICANN board not to go >ahead with this. That's what we advise. It is still the advice of the >European Commission after the clarifications given by the ICANN board >this evening. > >>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just wanted to flag at least one sentence >in the Department of Justice anti-trust division letter because I am >also hopeful that we will have a written response. Certainly not today, >but we will get a response in writing. And there is a fairly direct >sentence in here that says, "In the division's view, ICANN should >retain its prohibition on vertical integration for existing gTLDs >except in cases where ICANN, in consultation with public and private >sector stakeholders and independent analysts, determines that the >registry does not have or is unlikely to obtain market power." So there >are quite a few recommendations that follow that, and it would be >useful to get your views as to how you might want to follow- up on >those recommendations. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Jun 18 06:52:01 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:52:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Thanks Bill. I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a (hopefully useful) reference. Best, Andrea On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I did not say it was the GAC that was contacted, though various members > were.  They are not the competition authorities. > > > Sure Avri, didn't say you had.  But the competition authorities seem to have > communicated with their respective GAC reps, and the message didn't seem to > be ok fine by us. > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > For the record, the European Commission sent two letters asking for > clarifications on the vertical integration between registries and > registrar. > > > Thanks Andrea.  Further to your point, just had a look at the Singapore > meeting > transcript http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/icann-gac-board-transcript.  A > few quotes: > > on trademarks > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: We have had this discussion and it seems to be a >>> discussion between the deaf and the stupid, in a way. > >>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, it's. > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: There's no point in going through this discussion >>> again. > >>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If they both have to do the same thing -- > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Why don't you take the European trademark regime and >>> make that the model for the rest of the world. > > on VI > >>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: ...We have set out in that submission that there are >>> important concerns and a need for clarifications and further substantiation >>> of the reversal of policy to allow vertical integration. I'm not clear, like >>> my U.K. colleague, how the ICANN board is take this into account….I think an >>> important request to ICANN was that this fundamental decision should be >>> disassociated from the launch of the gTLD program….the main question now is >>> to hear from the ICANN board how it will take into account the concerns set >>> out in our letter and the request to disassociate the decision on the >>> competition registry/registrar issue from the launch of the new gTLD >>> program...We consider it preferable to disassociate such a fundamental >>> decision from the new gTLD launch process and maintain for the time being >>> and subject to the gathering of further data the existing rules on vertical >>> separation between registries and registrars for both new and existing gTLDs >>> subject to limited exceptions for clearly pro competitive cases. So the >>> question I put to you earlier, and I think I am putting it to you even more >>> clearly now, is how are you going to respond to this particular request? Are >>> you disassociating it from the launch of the new gTLDs or are you sticking >>> to your position or have you modified your position in light of the elements >>> that have been put to your attention?... > > ...I find it interesting that the ICANN board members think that they have > more knowledge about the competition than the competition authorities... I > mean, in the submission of the European Commission is the point I made at > the beginning, we advise the ICANN board not to go ahead with this. That's > what we advise. It is still the advice of the European Commission after the > clarifications given by the ICANN board this evening. > >>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just wanted to flag at least one sentence in >>> the Department of Justice anti-trust division letter because I am also >>> hopeful that we will have a written response. Certainly not today, but we >>> will get a response in writing. And there is a fairly direct sentence in >>> here that says, "In the division's view, ICANN should retain its prohibition >>> on vertical integration for existing gTLDs except in cases where ICANN, in >>> consultation with public and private sector stakeholders and independent >>> analysts, determines that the registry does not have or is unlikely to >>> obtain market power." So there are quite a few recommendations that follow >>> that, and it would be useful to get your views as to how you might want to >>> follow- up on those recommendations. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Jun 18 06:54:00 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:54:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across > the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see > this as a "central control". I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean they are not centrally controlled by Google? The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it "central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 18 07:18:25 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:18:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:21 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Daniel >> >> >> On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to >> Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce >> bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is >> precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) >> competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). >> Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because >> they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) >> >> >> Is this a typo? It's obviously not you that'd get paid. They want foreign >> (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you downloaded >> using their apparently scarce bandwidth. > > > > I assumed Daniel was speaking from a providers (ISP) POV. Right, so it was a typo, should have been "your customer downloading a huge file and having a foreign provider pay you". Just checking. And yes, apparently some providers can imagine that…in their most blissful dreams. BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jun 18 07:21:41 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:21:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <4d93ad3c-3ed3-47ce-a1fc-6d332196794c@email.android.com> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <1633863954.19492.1340011485582.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f25> <4d93ad3c-3ed3-47ce-a1fc-6d332196794c@email.android.com> Message-ID: <4FDF0F45.2060405@digsys.bg> On 18.06.12 12:44, Avri Doria wrote: > Yes, for as long as people are the nasty creatures we are, states remain an necessarry evil, but there is no reason to entrust them with the tools of freedom and progress. Very good Avri! Certainly the essence of my opinion. Wish people were different, but one has to acknowledge reality. > I am assuming tha what Ethiopian and FT have done to consipre with each other to deprive the Ethiopian people with a goood communications tool was perfectly ok with the ITU. Am I wrong about that? What is even more weird about this situation is that (judging by my own observations over the years - which I believe are even more extreme in Ethiopia), the monopoly Telco is likely able to offer "telephony only" is most places and "telephony and Internet" is very limited other places. So, they are afraid of losing monopoly telephony revenue in the places where they offer Internet as well. Truth is, they have already let the Genie out of the bottle. If they didn't want people to use Internet in Ethiopia, then the local monopoly Telco should not have offered Internet services at all. For the other people, who would use Internet over the telephony network (via modem), it is painful enough to use (today's) Internet over modem, let alone voice via skype. As for.. "policies which could aim to common, public interest". No, I reduce my trust to anyone who claims such are their only motivation. For as the old saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Daniel PS: I have no proof from where I came, actually. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 18 07:31:41 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:31:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <168A8AE7-13FF-4444-BC0A-A6881D5B92BF@uzh.ch> Hi Andrea On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Thanks Bill. > > I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with > the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two > separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a > (hopefully useful) reference. Sure, thanks. I just thought they both spoke to the same point about GAC advice, the relative autonomy of the board, and the benefits of a model in which the ultimate 'oversight' decision making authority is not necessarily vested in governments, which from time to time actually don't make optimal decisions. Plus, I just really like the EC quotes in the trademark exchange ;-) See you tomorrow in parliament, BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jun 18 07:40:31 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:40:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EDD9E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FDED02E.3030605@digsys.bg> <99C4F5DB-67EC-419E-9368-F481ABA9CA3B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FDF13AF.1000708@digsys.bg> On 18.06.12 14:18, William Drake wrote: > On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:21 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Daniel >>> >>> >>> On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:52 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >>> >>> The concept, that ITU could bring the "sender pays" accounting mechanism to >>> Internet is absurd. Yet more absurd is the concept that ITU could enforce >>> bilateral interconnection arrangements for IP traffic. Remember, this is >>> precisely what killed X.400 when it saw the (primitive at the time) >>> competition by Internet-based e-mail (UUCP, SMTP, ...). >>> Imagine, downloading huge file and having your provider pay you, because >>> they sent your way more IP packets that you sent back? :) >>> >>> >>> Is this a typo? It's obviously not you that'd get paid. They want foreign >>> (US) ISPs and "OTT service providers" to pay them because you downloaded >>> using their apparently scarce bandwidth. >> >> >> I assumed Daniel was speaking from a providers (ISP) POV. > Right, so it was a typo, should have been "your customer downloading a huge file and having a foreign provider pay you". Just checking. And yes, apparently some providers can imagine that…in their most blissful dreams. Neither, actually. :-) I was trying to respond as one who tries to comprehend the implications.... being on both sides of the fence. For, even if I do work on providing certain services to some, I also do consume the services of others (and no, not strictly 'larger'/'smaller' provider). I do enjoy being just an user, trust me. It is very revealing of many weird things. Yet, like who I am, this was not a typo. It was precisely worded this way, in order to extend the concept (because it could happen at some point, when someone pushes it): in order to make it very obvious how absurd the concept it. Let me explain. I see trough the hidden agenda of such proposals. The idea is, that Internet, being bottom-up effort, has disrupted the world monopolies. These monopolies "fought back" by buying the larger infrastructure and concentrating bandwidth, services etc... only to find out, that because of the nature of Internet, new competition grows up out of nowhere. Of course, I am able to recognize and see all this because I am with the process since when Internet became an "out of the academia" experience. Back then, at the time, we had to resort to user groups, "internal business", personal collaboration etc. Some 20 years ago, the EUnet network (a business, offering Internet services, without any doubt) was in fact defined as "an activity of the European UNIX Users Group". Times were so absurd, that we had to make anyone and everyone who wanted access to Internet members of (the local chapter of) the UNIX Users Group --- before they could get any service. Make no mistake. Metered use of Internet, the "sender pays" scheme etc are what the Telcos and their ITU wants. Only, this scheme works when there is one (monopoly) Internet operator in the country, preferably state owned (because of all the benefits I outlined earlier) and everyone else is their direct users. They get to have the users pay "what the Government has decided" and then pay each other on "sender pays" principles. Since traffic flows both ways on huge pipes, only the smallest members (but larger number) of the club get to actually pay, and the largest members just go banqueting at expensive places. The only trouble with this is, that Internet has already become ubiquitous and so popular and also so compelling for them to participate and use, that this is not easy to implement anymore. Not that those will stop trying, one way or another. This "voip is unlawful" has been tried everywhere. In my own country, there was a period which it was outlawed and for longer period, the "Internet services" or even plain data pipes that one could buy from out (state owned, but even when it was privatized) monopoly Telcom -- there were clauses in the contract "You are prohibited to use VOIP traffic over this service". In the beginning they were even pathetic enough to try filtering it. Not much after however, the monopoly Telco became irrelevant in all data, telephony and Internet communications. Those "restrictions" were silently dropped. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 18 08:07:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:07:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> Message-ID: <094176e9-eb63-4565-80f3-f9af31197408@email.android.com> Well, must the other root servers accept the changes made by the NTIA -> IANA controlled server? I didnot think so. So while it is centralized, it can cease to be centralized anytime the caretakers of the other caretakers decide tha it should be decentralized. On the other had, the anycast reflections of servers aroundddddd the world are, I bbbeleive, totally dependent made by the server they are based on. On another topic that will make people head hurt: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnaswamy-dnsop-dnssec-split-view avri Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across >> the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see >> this as a "central control". > >I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in >governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across >the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean >they are not centrally controlled by Google? > >The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only >when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it >"central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name >servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 10:22:44 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:22:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FDEEE19.7000800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: For the technically minded here is the link to China's document to the IETF https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 2:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? On Sunday 17 June 2012 07:37 PM, michael gurstein wrote: If I am reading this below correctly... One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support for/weaken opposition to such developments. Exactly so, Mike. Those who have consistently refused to pay heed to the genuine concerns of developing countries, and somehow unilaterally decided that this is not the time for global agreements (which alone can save, or is it already could have saved, a global Internet), may hopefully now begin to realise their folly. When things were still open, and much of the processes and capabilities in non gov hands, was, and maybe still is, the best time to negotiate using this 'power' for a global open Internet. Even to have agreed to a few clear globally accepted principles for the Internet would have committed (or 'trapped) the major actors to a global Internet. For instance, I know, five or six years ago, even China was ready to come to the table to talk about some global principles, while now it simply refuses to have anything much to do even with a UN hearing on enhanced cooperation. People may remember the early days when China actually participated in the IGF with considerable enthusiasm. One can easily see the slide, and I think many apparently good thinking people (CS, generally) need also to take a good part of the responsibility for this. Am reminded what I once read in a novel - the world was never saved by its good people, because the good people wont go to the lengths needed to save the world. parminder M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi all, i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet governance issues. DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College propose. Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a "central control". From Introduction on Root DNS: " But its central control method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS architecture." From AIP DNS Architecture: "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent island in the world. -naif _______________________________________________ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 18 10:39:53 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:39:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> Message-ID: Stephane, On Jun 18, 2012, at 3:54 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only > when there is an express approval by the US governement. Technically, not quite. As things currently stand, Verisign can make modifications (and DNSSEC-sign those modifications) to the published root zone without USG (or anyone else's) approval. For a little while. Given contractual relations, this of course would not be a 'career enhancing' action for the parties involved. > Isn't it "central control"? Yes. As you know, given the architecture of the DNS, centralized control is the simplest/easiest/most efficient mechanism for (any) zone administration. > Pretending that the physical location of root name > servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. As Avri points out, the root server operators, being independent and with one exception having no formal obligation to do anything, provide root resolution service out of the goodness of their hearts. In theory, if the USG were to run completely amok, the root servers could be configured to not accept zone updates until the amok-ness was remedied (or an alternative source for root zone data could be devised). While this would clearly be exercising the nuclear option, I do believe this does provide an actual concrete limitation on unilateral action. I believe some of the root server operators have stated something similar publicly. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 10:45:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:45:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> Message-ID: One thing I've noticed in the course of these IG discussions is that while technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds, non-technical people assume that non-technical issues (at least) will be determined by non-technical (policy) people for whom the perception of the issue (and its broader context) is very much more important than the reality or not of the technical circumstances. As per the below--identifying a particular argument/person/position as "ignorant" may for technical people be understood as the end of the argument--for non-technical people such an observation is rather the beginning since it means that the other party, needs to be informed/educated/persuaded/understood before one can move on. To ignore or dismiss someone's position because they are "ignorant" (or whatever) in non-technical areas (at least) is extremely dangerous since without some intervention it is quite likely that they will act on the basis of that "ignorance" with quite unpredictable and potentially extremely damaging consequences. M -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: lists at infosecurity.ch Subject: Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across > the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this > as a "central control". I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean they are not centrally controlled by Google? The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it "central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Jun 18 11:00:49 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:00:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, I fear you have made an unwarranted assumption here - "technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds." Speaking for myself alone: no, not at all; what many of us do believe is that: 1. you won't be able to apply just any given social/political view model to the technology without considering the constraints that the technology carries with it (the "physics" of the Internet). 2. A lot of careful thought and decades of experience have gone into designing and implementing technology, so very often it has already been crafted in function of not purely technical concerns. The design for resilience of the root-zone server system is but one small example. People need to listen, study, and understand this well. 3. Many in the technical community were not only glad but actually proactive in seeking knowledge and understanding from such non-technical fields as economics, political science, and international relations. We have often been underwhelmed and disappointed. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de junio de 2012 09:45 Hasta: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? One thing I've noticed in the course of these IG discussions is that while technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds, non-technical people assume that non-technical issues (at least) will be determined by non-technical (policy) people for whom the perception of the issue (and its broader context) is very much more important than the reality or not of the technical circumstances. As per the below--identifying a particular argument/person/position as "ignorant" may for technical people be understood as the end of the argument--for non-technical people such an observation is rather the beginning since it means that the other party, needs to be informed/educated/persuaded/understood before one can move on. To ignore or dismiss someone's position because they are "ignorant" (or whatever) in non-technical areas (at least) is extremely dangerous since without some intervention it is quite likely that they will act on the basis of that "ignorance" with quite unpredictable and potentially extremely damaging consequences. M -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: lists at infosecurity.ch Subject: Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across > the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this > as a "central control". I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean they are not centrally controlled by Google? The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it "central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 11:54:51 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:54:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] CNN: The tiny island with a huge Web presence Message-ID: <188BD9755F01453C9862C7F32804DB12@UserVAIO> http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/13/tech/web/tokelau-domain-name-holder/index. html?hpt=hp_bn9 (CNN) -- If you're among the companies vying for one of the nearly 2,000 new generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, you've got big pockets. The application alone costs about $185,000. But if you're just an average Joe building your own website or blog, there are much cheaper options out there. One of the most popular is .tk. It's a country code top-level domain, similar to .ca for Canada or .fr for France. But .tk stands for a country you've probably never heard of. It's called Tokelau. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 12:20:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:20:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: The tiny island with a huge Web presence In-Reply-To: <188BD9755F01453C9862C7F32804DB12@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <2D6B1101991C4AAC902E0648908C0F95@UserVAIO> Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/7rc4vp4 -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:55 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: CNN: The tiny island with a huge Web presence http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/13/tech/web/tokelau-domain-name-holder/index. html?hpt=hp_bn9 (CNN) -- If you're among the companies vying for one of the nearly 2,000 new generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, you've got big pockets. The application alone costs about $185,000. But if you're just an average Joe building your own website or blog, there are much cheaper options out there. One of the most popular is .tk. It's a country code top-level domain, similar to .ca for Canada or .fr for France. But .tk stands for a country you've probably never heard of. It's called Tokelau. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 12:30:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:30:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Portraits of Greeks Message-ID: <12C9F51EF24F48EB8A207C99B0682003@UserVAIO> http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2012/06/world/interactive.greek.voices.re visited/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/c7boy4j -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 18 13:19:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:49:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <168A8AE7-13FF-4444-BC0A-A6881D5B92BF@uzh.ch> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> <168A8AE7-13FF-4444-BC0A-A6881D5B92BF@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4FDF6306.1060706@itforchange.net> Excuse my ignorance, but I am interested in exploring the relationship of the vertical integration - or of removal of cross ownership restrictions - decision of the last year, and the imminent private ownership of entire tld spaces, and along with it, the exclusive use of some generic words on the right side of the dot, for ones own business interests. Did the requirement to have non-owned registrars also mean that domains names were obligatorily to be sold in the open market on a non-discriminatory basis? Was any obligations to sell domain names in open market on non discriminatory basis, in any case, a part of registry and registrar agreements? Sorry for asking these simple and basic questions, but I always took it for granted that any tld would be available for anyone on a non discriminatory basis, of course for a price. Perhaps, allocating exclusive tlds to respective trademark owners can be considered as a special case (though I have arguments against such a practice as well) but to allow generic words and names as exclusive tld spaces is quite un-understandable. What pulbic interest is it supposed to serve? What was behind this decision? parminder On Monday 18 June 2012 05:01 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Andrea > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > >> Thanks Bill. >> >> I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with >> the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two >> separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a >> (hopefully useful) reference. >> > Sure, thanks. I just thought they both spoke to the same point about GAC advice, the relative autonomy of the board, and the benefits of a model in which the ultimate 'oversight' decision making authority is not necessarily vested in governments, which from time to time actually don't make optimal decisions. Plus, I just really like the EC quotes in the trademark exchange ;-) > > See you tomorrow in parliament, > > BD > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Jun 18 13:34:39 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:34:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FDF6306.1060706@itforchange.net> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> <168A8AE7-13FF-4444-BC0A-A6881D5B92BF@uzh.ch> <4FDF6306.1060706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <28c0a4d6-6507-43e6-abbb-97c8a8b731e9@email.android.com> Inset avri parminder wrote: >Excuse my ignorance, but I am interested in exploring the relationship >of the vertical integration - or of removal of cross ownership >restrictions - decision of the last year, and the imminent private >ownership of entire tld spaces, and along with it, the exclusive use of > >some generic words on the right side of the dot, for ones own business >interests. Did the requirement to have non-owned registrars also mean >that domains names were obligatorily to be sold in the open market on a > >non-discriminatory basis? Was any obligations to sell domain names in >open market on non discriminatory basis, in any case, a part of >registry >and registrar agreements? Nope. The only obligation is to offer nondiscriminatory conditions to all interested accredited registrars. The conditions can be onerous, but they must not discriminate between among the accredited registrars. In fact with community applications the requirement is to only register names to members of the community, however that community is defined. And yes to my recollection this notion of single point of control for a TLD was an integral part of the VI discussions. > >Sorry for asking these simple and basic questions, but I always took it > >for granted that any tld would be available for anyone on a non >discriminatory basis, of course for a price. Perhaps, allocating >exclusive tlds to respective trademark owners can be considered as a >special case (though I have arguments against such a practice as well) >but to allow generic words and names as exclusive tld spaces is quite >un-understandable. What pulbic interest is it supposed to serve? What >was behind this decision? While there were those who argued for a public interest based designation of names, the theory that money, aka the market, was the only reliable measure of public interest prevailed except for a very narrow consideration for community based applications (something the market place heroes continue to decry to this day) >parminder > >On Monday 18 June 2012 05:01 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Andrea >> >> On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks Bill. >>> >>> I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with >>> the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two >>> separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a >>> (hopefully useful) reference. >>> >> Sure, thanks. I just thought they both spoke to the same point about >GAC advice, the relative autonomy of the board, and the benefits of a >model in which the ultimate 'oversight' decision making authority is >not necessarily vested in governments, which from time to time actually >don't make optimal decisions. Plus, I just really like the EC quotes >in the trademark exchange ;-) >> >> See you tomorrow in parliament, >> >> BD >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 18 13:43:51 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:43:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may offer to the discussion another bit of US administrative history trivia, which could buttress one's argument whether one believes the US has too much central control or whether one agrees that ICANN having to follow - some nation's domestic laws in various areas - is a good thing. The US Administrative Procedures Act of -1946 - establishes a standard level of transparency for government and regulatory body actions. "U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies" (according to Wikipedia) To clarify then from an APA view, the US DOC/NTIA role over the root zone changes is - not - to approve the changes; but rather to - confirm - (one could say approve the changes, after confirming) that ICANN aka IANA, and Verisign followed proper administrative procedures as set forth in the APA, in proposing and implementing technical changes to the Root Zone file. I am sure Parminder is delighted that a 'bill of rights' protecting individuals rights vis a vis possibly arbitrary action undergirds all changes in the root zone. If only there were principles as well. ; ) And which is not to say that under various worst case/doomsday scenarios the NTIA could - attempt - to do more. But I suspect it is held back by the NTIA's knowledge that knowledgeable insiders know that the emperor not only has no virtual clothes; or in political terms, enforcement mechanism. Which the NTIA's career bureaucrats likely need to explain to one generation after another of possibly overzealous political appointees. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that a host country agreement for ICANN is a good idea; but also agree with Alejandro that any proposed changes to core functions of the Internet must be approached with due caution, and with full understanding of how the current processes operate. And ideally, follow an open and transparent process of discussion and refinement. Which is the kind of thing that the APA does reasonably well. So to be clear, in addition to some standards for competition policy, I am suggesting that given the resource allocation and quasi-regulatory functions of ICANN, and the high risk of regulatory capture from specific interests like, to pick random examples, the International Trademark Association, registries and registrars, it is especially important that some form of good governance procedures - tether - remain attached to an autonomous ICANN. Now to my second point. And I confess belatedly to not only playing a lawyer on the Internet, but to having spent time at the Max Planck Institut fuer Auslaendische und Internationale Privatrecht (Mac Planck Institute for Foreign and International Commercial Law) during my doctoral studies; and to having a concentration in international law in my master's studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS. Meaning any real lawyers, or Internet lawyers, should feel free to correct me. So: International public law norms apply - universally. Yes a nation may not sign on to a particular norm, but that would not stop other nations or eg the International Criminal Court to bringing someone from a non-signatory nation to account. Yeah, most clearly applies to war crimes, but similar sentiments drive other areas of international law. International treaties generally are at this level, involving commitments of states to apply internationally agreed principles, also within their territories. Some require new domestically enacted legislation, others apply once the state signs on. There is international commercial law which applies to - transactions - and governs transactions among firms based within nations that are signatory to eg World Trade Organization agreements. It explains partially why the US signed the 100 year-old Berne Convention for protecting intellectual property, 100 years late; since only with the growth of trade in services and the rise of the Internet did the US care to seek to strongly enforce its intellectual property claims abroad, with the cooperation of other nations and their courts. That's WIPO territory at the international level. And, there is comparative law, wherein transactions (and disputes) across borders are governed by one nation's domestic law, which the other party has acceded to at the time of the signing of a contract. When disputes arise...well, in our Internet case, for certain instances, folks have agreed not to apply domestic or comparative law since it would be costly and complex, but to establish the UDRP for domain name dispute resolution. Meaning, we can point to the UDRP as a specific international improvization/adaptation of the global legal regime to accommodate the urgent fact that disputes were arising across borders around domain names. So, in principle, Parminder's argument that further -international/unievrsally-applicable legal innovation- is needed, cannot be rejected as unprecedented. Therefore: Some aspects of Internet governance, touching on areas like free expression, and referencing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fall in the first category. Some aspects of ICANN's contract-driven regime relate to the second. And, some aspects of what a future/evolved/more globalized ICANN does, may still best be tethered to either the host country, or another countries, domestic legal norms. For example, I have always been a big fan of the US Administrative Procedures Act, and have been advising ICANN to follow its norms and procedures as much as possible, for more than a decade. On the other hand, I have been advising firms and governments to follow European Union Privacy Directives, also for more than a decade. Which is not to say that we could not cherry-pick various other nation's 'greatest hits' legal instruments, as needed, to apply to one or another aspect of the globalized ICANN. Absent that, then yes US domestic commercial law, and for incorporation and reporting to the state of California and to the Federal IRS for maintenance of its status as a non-profit organization, California non-profit law applies in the first instance to ICANN's actions and transactions. California non-profit law is as Milton has noted, actually considered by many (non-Californians) a reasonable basis for providing accounting of a non-profit organization's functioning. Or, like with UDRP, certain admin procedure could be abstracted from various sources, and turned into new globally-applicable norms and procedures, for the Internet. We've been there, and done that. Doesn't mean we need to do it again, but does mean - it is possible, when coalitions of forces align/rough consensus on the need for change is reached. In conclusion: Asking - anyone - to develop a fully comprehensive model of the next stage of Internet Governance, presumes that person is as intimately familiar with the Internet's plumbing as David, John, McTim, Avri and Alejandro; but that they also have not one but three legal specializations/certificates as well. Not to mention a fair appreciation of both public policy and contemporary business practice. Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet Governance. All the while known and unknown game-playing agents seek to divert and distort the discussion for the usual reasons. But hey, at least, after a decade, we have begun to talk about what is really needed to globalize Internet governance. Finally, tieing this back to the Chinese IETF submission for an 'Autonomous Internet.' Without going into specifics yay or nay on the submission, I observe that the Chinese submission to the IETF follows - proper administrative procedures in introducing a draft to the IETF, and not going rogue as a beloved US politician puts it...yeah I'm kidding at times, and other times not. Following diplomatic standards for discourse. Lee PS: Slings, arrows, and lawsuits including for practicing law without a license may be filed to my email address above ; ) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' Subject: RE: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Mike, I fear you have made an unwarranted assumption here - "technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds." Speaking for myself alone: no, not at all; what many of us do believe is that: 1. you won't be able to apply just any given social/political view model to the technology without considering the constraints that the technology carries with it (the "physics" of the Internet). 2. A lot of careful thought and decades of experience have gone into designing and implementing technology, so very often it has already been crafted in function of not purely technical concerns. The design for resilience of the root-zone server system is but one small example. People need to listen, study, and understand this well. 3. Many in the technical community were not only glad but actually proactive in seeking knowledge and understanding from such non-technical fields as economics, political science, and international relations. We have often been underwhelmed and disappointed. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de junio de 2012 09:45 Hasta: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? One thing I've noticed in the course of these IG discussions is that while technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds, non-technical people assume that non-technical issues (at least) will be determined by non-technical (policy) people for whom the perception of the issue (and its broader context) is very much more important than the reality or not of the technical circumstances. As per the below--identifying a particular argument/person/position as "ignorant" may for technical people be understood as the end of the argument--for non-technical people such an observation is rather the beginning since it means that the other party, needs to be informed/educated/persuaded/understood before one can move on. To ignore or dismiss someone's position because they are "ignorant" (or whatever) in non-technical areas (at least) is extremely dangerous since without some intervention it is quite likely that they will act on the basis of that "ignorance" with quite unpredictable and potentially extremely damaging consequences. M -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: lists at infosecurity.ch Subject: Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across > the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this > as a "central control". I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean they are not centrally controlled by Google? The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it "central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Jun 18 15:57:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:57:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48320F8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Lee, thanks for a most informative, useful and not-underwhelming contribution. I think there is a deeper problem with the argument you argue against,not yours, but the one you are counterarguing: There is no way to build a single, comprehensive institution or mechanism for the whole of Internet Governance, not now and likely not for many years. The mechanisms that exist and are evolving - be it ICANN, the MAAWG, the APWG, what have you - are built around the solution of a single problem or problem set - managing the centrally-coordinated part of the DNS and IP address allocation system, agreeing on how to curtail e-mail abuse, fighting phishing - by a relevant set of work-ready stakeholders and within known constraints. Anything else is but a manifestation of the illusion of world government. Not coming soon near you (maybe to a screen, as a design, but we know what succcess the previous attempts have had.) Better than continuing to build these pipe dreams, many of us have found it far more productive, as well as a learning experience for all, to get started solving what we can with a broader outlook for its impact on problems we can't solve yet. 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: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de junio de 2012 12:43 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; michael gurstein; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' Asunto: RE: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, If I may offer to the discussion another bit of US administrative history trivia, which could buttress one's argument whether one believes the US has too much central control or whether one agrees that ICANN having to follow - some nation's domestic laws in various areas - is a good thing. The US Administrative Procedures Act of -1946 - establishes a standard level of transparency for government and regulatory body actions. "U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA "a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated" by federal government agencies" (according to Wikipedia) To clarify then from an APA view, the US DOC/NTIA role over the root zone changes is - not - to approve the changes; but rather to - confirm - (one could say approve the changes, after confirming) that ICANN aka IANA, and Verisign followed proper administrative procedures as set forth in the APA, in proposing and implementing technical changes to the Root Zone file. I am sure Parminder is delighted that a 'bill of rights' protecting individuals rights vis a vis possibly arbitrary action undergirds all changes in the root zone. If only there were principles as well. ; ) And which is not to say that under various worst case/doomsday scenarios the NTIA could - attempt - to do more. But I suspect it is held back by the NTIA's knowledge that knowledgeable insiders know that the emperor not only has no virtual clothes; or in political terms, enforcement mechanism. Which the NTIA's career bureaucrats likely need to explain to one generation after another of possibly overzealous political appointees. Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that a host country agreement for ICANN is a good idea; but also agree with Alejandro that any proposed changes to core functions of the Internet must be approached with due caution, and with full understanding of how the current processes operate. And ideally, follow an open and transparent process of discussion and refinement. Which is the kind of thing that the APA does reasonably well. So to be clear, in addition to some standards for competition policy, I am suggesting that given the resource allocation and quasi-regulatory functions of ICANN, and the high risk of regulatory capture from specific interests like, to pick random examples, the International Trademark Association, registries and registrars, it is especially important that some form of good governance procedures - tether - remain attached to an autonomous ICANN. Now to my second point. And I confess belatedly to not only playing a lawyer on the Internet, but to having spent time at the Max Planck Institut fuer Auslaendische und Internationale Privatrecht (Mac Planck Institute for Foreign and International Commercial Law) during my doctoral studies; and to having a concentration in international law in my master's studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS. Meaning any real lawyers, or Internet lawyers, should feel free to correct me. So: International public law norms apply - universally. Yes a nation may not sign on to a particular norm, but that would not stop other nations or eg the International Criminal Court to bringing someone from a non-signatory nation to account. Yeah, most clearly applies to war crimes, but similar sentiments drive other areas of international law. International treaties generally are at this level, involving commitments of states to apply internationally agreed principles, also within their territories. Some require new domestically enacted legislation, others apply once the state signs on. There is international commercial law which applies to - transactions - and governs transactions among firms based within nations that are signatory to eg World Trade Organization agreements. It explains partially why the US signed the 100 year-old Berne Convention for protecting intellectual property, 100 years late; since only with the growth of trade in services and the rise of the Internet did the US care to seek to strongly enforce its intellectual property claims abroad, with the cooperation of other nations and their courts. That's WIPO territory at the international level. And, there is comparative law, wherein transactions (and disputes) across borders are governed by one nation's domestic law, which the other party has acceded to at the time of the signing of a contract. When disputes arise...well, in our Internet case, for certain instances, folks have agreed not to apply domestic or comparative law since it would be costly and complex, but to establish the UDRP for domain name dispute resolution. Meaning, we can point to the UDRP as a specific international improvization/adaptation of the global legal regime to accommodate the urgent fact that disputes were arising across borders around domain names. So, in principle, Parminder's argument that further -international/unievrsally-applicable legal innovation- is needed, cannot be rejected as unprecedented. Therefore: Some aspects of Internet governance, touching on areas like free expression, and referencing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fall in the first category. Some aspects of ICANN's contract-driven regime relate to the second. And, some aspects of what a future/evolved/more globalized ICANN does, may still best be tethered to either the host country, or another countries, domestic legal norms. For example, I have always been a big fan of the US Administrative Procedures Act, and have been advising ICANN to follow its norms and procedures as much as possible, for more than a decade. On the other hand, I have been advising firms and governments to follow European Union Privacy Directives, also for more than a decade. Which is not to say that we could not cherry-pick various other nation's 'greatest hits' legal instruments, as needed, to apply to one or another aspect of the globalized ICANN. Absent that, then yes US domestic commercial law, and for incorporation and reporting to the state of California and to the Federal IRS for maintenance of its status as a non-profit organization, California non-profit law applies in the first instance to ICANN's actions and transactions. California non-profit law is as Milton has noted, actually considered by many (non-Californians) a reasonable basis for providing accounting of a non-profit organization's functioning. Or, like with UDRP, certain admin procedure could be abstracted from various sources, and turned into new globally-applicable norms and procedures, for the Internet. We've been there, and done that. Doesn't mean we need to do it again, but does mean - it is possible, when coalitions of forces align/rough consensus on the need for change is reached. In conclusion: Asking - anyone - to develop a fully comprehensive model of the next stage of Internet Governance, presumes that person is as intimately familiar with the Internet's plumbing as David, John, McTim, Avri and Alejandro; but that they also have not one but three legal specializations/certificates as well. Not to mention a fair appreciation of both public policy and contemporary business practice. Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet Governance. All the while known and unknown game-playing agents seek to divert and distort the discussion for the usual reasons. But hey, at least, after a decade, we have begun to talk about what is really needed to globalize Internet governance. Finally, tieing this back to the Chinese IETF submission for an 'Autonomous Internet.' Without going into specifics yay or nay on the submission, I observe that the Chinese submission to the IETF follows - proper administrative procedures in introducing a draft to the IETF, and not going rogue as a beloved US politician puts it...yeah I'm kidding at times, and other times not. Following diplomatic standards for discourse. Lee PS: Slings, arrows, and lawsuits including for practicing law without a license may be filed to my email address above ; ) ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' Subject: RE: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Mike, I fear you have made an unwarranted assumption here - "technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds." Speaking for myself alone: no, not at all; what many of us do believe is that: 1. you won't be able to apply just any given social/political view model to the technology without considering the constraints that the technology carries with it (the "physics" of the Internet). 2. A lot of careful thought and decades of experience have gone into designing and implementing technology, so very often it has already been crafted in function of not purely technical concerns. The design for resilience of the root-zone server system is but one small example. People need to listen, study, and understand this well. 3. Many in the technical community were not only glad but actually proactive in seeking knowledge and understanding from such non-technical fields as economics, political science, and international relations. We have often been underwhelmed and disappointed. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de junio de 2012 09:45 Hasta: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? One thing I've noticed in the course of these IG discussions is that while technical people seem to assume that all issues concerning the Internet will be determined by technical people on technical grounds, non-technical people assume that non-technical issues (at least) will be determined by non-technical (policy) people for whom the perception of the issue (and its broader context) is very much more important than the reality or not of the technical circumstances. As per the below--identifying a particular argument/person/position as "ignorant" may for technical people be understood as the end of the argument--for non-technical people such an observation is rather the beginning since it means that the other party, needs to be informed/educated/persuaded/understood before one can move on. To ignore or dismiss someone's position because they are "ignorant" (or whatever) in non-technical areas (at least) is extremely dangerous since without some intervention it is quite likely that they will act on the basis of that "ignorance" with quite unpredictable and potentially extremely damaging consequences. M -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: lists at infosecurity.ch Subject: Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across > the world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this > as a "central control". I'm always amazed by the amount of ignorance in some people in governance discussions. Google's servers are "well distributed across the world", even more than the DNS root name servers. Does it mean they are not centrally controlled by Google? The root zone can be modified (even for small technical changes) only when there is an express approval by the US governement. Isn't it "central control"? Pretending that the physical location of root name servers diminishes this control is quite ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Jun 18 16:05:09 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:05:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FDF6306.1060706@itforchange.net> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> <6zAHOVcxBt3PFA6Q@internetpolicyagency.com> <81EBBEFB-889C-4180-AAA8-D726BFB86A7C@uzh.ch> <6b1bf451-9821-4b63-a1c2-bb813d125d46@email.android.com> <3669D1AF-8B8D-43FB-8DE4-14246FE9D5C3@uzh.ch> <168A8AE7-13FF-4444-BC0A-A6881D5B92BF@uzh.ch>,<4FDF6306.1060706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48320FFC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, honestly, in respect of vertical integration between top-level domain registries and registrars vertical integration, "excuse my ignorance" is a bit of a stretch. Go study. An expert and vividly interested community has worked together for what maybe exceeds hundreds of thousands of person-hours to answer questions like yours in a professional manner. One shortcut: attend an ICANN meeting. The first day there is always a beginners session and during the week a lot of learning opportunities to get the whole thing, from basics to the present cutting-edge state of the art, if you are really interested. 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 parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de junio de 2012 12:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] "Oversight" Excuse my ignorance, but I am interested in exploring the relationship of the vertical integration - or of removal of cross ownership restrictions - decision of the last year, and the imminent private ownership of entire tld spaces, and along with it, the exclusive use of some generic words on the right side of the dot, for ones own business interests. Did the requirement to have non-owned registrars also mean that domains names were obligatorily to be sold in the open market on a non-discriminatory basis? Was any obligations to sell domain names in open market on non discriminatory basis, in any case, a part of registry and registrar agreements? Sorry for asking these simple and basic questions, but I always took it for granted that any tld would be available for anyone on a non discriminatory basis, of course for a price. Perhaps, allocating exclusive tlds to respective trademark owners can be considered as a special case (though I have arguments against such a practice as well) but to allow generic words and names as exclusive tld spaces is quite un-understandable. What pulbic interest is it supposed to serve? What was behind this decision? parminder On Monday 18 June 2012 05:01 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi Andrea On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: Thanks Bill. I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a (hopefully useful) reference. Sure, thanks. I just thought they both spoke to the same point about GAC advice, the relative autonomy of the board, and the benefits of a model in which the ultimate 'oversight' decision making authority is not necessarily vested in governments, which from time to time actually don't make optimal decisions. Plus, I just really like the EC quotes in the trademark exchange ;-) See you tomorrow in parliament, BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 18 17:09:50 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:09:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:43:51 +0000) References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that a host country agreement > for ICANN is a good idea; but also agree with Alejandro that any > proposed changes to core functions of the Internet must be > approached with due caution, and with full understanding of how the > current processes operate. And ideally, follow an open and > transparent process of discussion and refinement. Which is the kind > of thing that the APA does reasonably well. Hmm... in the context of that Administrative Procedures Act, "open" seems to mean "anyone can observe" rather than "anyone can participate in the discussions that matter". Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be given due consideration. > Asking - anyone - to develop a fully comprehensive model of the next > stage of Internet Governance, presumes that person is as intimately > familiar with the Internet's plumbing as David, John, McTim, Avri > and Alejandro; but that they also have not one but three legal > specializations/certificates as well. Not to mention a fair > appreciation of both public policy and contemporary business > practice. > > Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed > disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a > whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - > apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet > Governance. I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force") structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this purpose. 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 Mon Jun 18 17:40:44 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:40:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hey Norbert, Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be given due consideration. Again referencing the APA, and explaining why NTIA (and FCC) accept submissions from legal and other persons anywhere on the planet - anyone can play. Meaning, one need not be a US citizen, or a US-based corporation, to submit comments to an NTIA proceeding, or to the FCC, to give 2 examples. Sometimes the agencies may explicitly invite comment from others based beyond the US borders, as was done around the end of the JPA proceeding. But even when they do not extend explicit invitations - they must, per the APA - be able to demonstrate, especially in the hypothetical case of a future lawsuit, that they took all submissions and comments into account. Including yours. In Washington's insider politics, companies from around the globe - represented by their super-well-paid DC counsel - submit reams of responses to US regulatory proceedings; typically highlighting how many US employees they have and how whatever they want serves the US national public interest, by coincidence. Still of course, one might suspect that the agencies tend to weigh more heavily submissions from US citizens and corporations, generally speaking. But I believe that can;t really be provable in a court of law; or they would have violated the APA. But yes still prior to that point, an administrative process has to decide something, just as for example ICANN staff (and/or Board) must at times - decide things. Hopefully taking full account of ICANN's own bottom up processes. So again, to try to separate strands out, one might argue that for ICANN's own bottom-up processes, when they filter up and through the staff, a need for transparency and openness remains. Such that arbitrary actions may not be taken or justified - arbitrarily. When and if things don;t go quite as desired...well that's where APAish guidelines - might - come into play. And now, for: Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed > disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a > whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - > apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet > Governance. I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force") structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this purpose. My comment: that might sound good...except I don;t know the rules by which your ECTF would play (beyond everyone is eligible to get in the game), nor the mission statement. So the deus ex machina ECTF ball remains in your court : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:09 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee W McKnight wrote: > Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that a host country agreement > for ICANN is a good idea; but also agree with Alejandro that any > proposed changes to core functions of the Internet must be > approached with due caution, and with full understanding of how the > current processes operate. And ideally, follow an open and > transparent process of discussion and refinement. Which is the kind > of thing that the APA does reasonably well. Hmm... in the context of that Administrative Procedures Act, "open" seems to mean "anyone can observe" rather than "anyone can participate in the discussions that matter". Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be given due consideration. > Asking - anyone - to develop a fully comprehensive model of the next > stage of Internet Governance, presumes that person is as intimately > familiar with the Internet's plumbing as David, John, McTim, Avri > and Alejandro; but that they also have not one but three legal > specializations/certificates as well. Not to mention a fair > appreciation of both public policy and contemporary business > practice. > > Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed > disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a > whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - > apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet > Governance. I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force") structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this purpose. 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 sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sat Jun 16 17:50:29 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:50:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Jun 18 22:21:10 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:21:10 +0500 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: I wonder why the reaction to this news whereas no one reacted when Pakistan and Dubai implemented similar restrictions on VOIP and Dubai going to the extent of criminalizing access to Skype and then both countries later returned to lesser restrictive policies as soon as industry organizations, consumer associations and civil society reacted and talked to governments. There is more OMG than actually starting a dialogue with governments why they are doing so. This is an important element that the IGF is slowly losing, activities and workshops around such topics and getting those actual authorities and representatives there to share why they did what they did and why they came about it and developed lesser restrictive policies. There is a regional IGF in Africa and its supported by the African Union. There should be a statement on this to the regional IGF secretariat requesting it to intervene. On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go again! -- Foo On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > +1 to Sala's input > > > -- > Sonigitu Ekpe > Project Support Officer[Agriculturist] > Cross River Farm Credit Scheme > Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources > 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 > Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. > Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179 >  "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > My personal view is that each context is different and has unique > challenges. In this instance, Ethiopia Telecommunication Corporation is > licensed to provide the following:- > Public Switched Telecommunication ServiceGSM 900 MHz Mobile > Telecommunication ServiceInternet ServiceDigital Data Communication > Of the 153 countries ranked in the 2011 IDI ranks as 151 which is very low. > Ethiopia is also classified as a low income economy. Ethiopia is considered > as the second most populous country in Africa and this affects issues of > "accessibility" and teledensity. They are also dealing with their Financial > Crisis and there is a Study on the Impact on Human Development by the UNFPA. > > The World Bank Ethiopia Director, Ken Ohashi is reported by Bloomberg in > 2011 to have said that Ethiopia's dependence on foreign capital to finance > budget deficits and a five year investment plan is unsustainable. > > According to the Bloomberg article, telecommunications is owned by the > State, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/ethiopia-s-investment-plan-may-be-unsustainable-world-bank-official-says.html. > > The challenges of having a sole provider of telecommunications. Is the > market liberalised? Are there incentives for liberalisation. > > Liberalisation of markets aside - if VOIP is banned, the first thing that > comes to mind is the inference that the conflict lies between providing > affordable access and operating a business where the bottom line helps to > increase "access". > > The Internet Governance Forum is an excellent place that allows developing > countries like Ethiopia who rank very poorly on the IDI to be able to mingle > and discuss history of growth of telecommunications with others from around > the world who are at different stages in development. They may be inspired > to figure our creative and innovative ways and means to advance access and > also give room for innovation and sustainability of business models. > > This is why collaboration and the rich sharing of information and resources > through dialogue. It is normal and usual for people to be in their > comfortable cliques at some of these forums. The rich diversity of the > global landscape and terrain and its challenges truly make the world a > diverse place. > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be > legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you > are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this > message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do > not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was > originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in > this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not > authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for > the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this > communication nor any delay in its receipt. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 02:43:45 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:43:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:40:44 +0000) References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: >> Having seen that specifically in the Internet context, the "anyone can >> participate in the discussions that matter" kind of openness can work >> rather well, I do not find it acceptable to settle for a lesser kind >> of openness: If some stakeholders are excluded from the discussions >> that matter, it is practically certain that their concerns will not be >> given due consideration. Lee W McKnight replied: > Again referencing the APA, and explaining why NTIA (and FCC) accept > submissions from legal and other persons anywhere on the planet - > anyone can play. Meaning, one need not be a US citizen, or a > US-based corporation, to submit comments to an NTIA proceeding, or > to the FCC, to give 2 examples. What I meant with "the discussions that matter" is the discussions in which the various viewpoints and arguments, that stakeholders have communicated, are evaluated. Consider for example the case of the cyrillic variant of .bg - even though the Bulgarians were able to provide input documents to the evaluation process, the process resulted in a decision which in my eyes is absolutely absurd. I suspect that procedurally, probably the problem was that the question about similarity to .br was evaluated by people with a very ASCII-centered worldview, and there was no course of action available to the Bulgarians for ensuring a reasonably strong representation, within the discussions that mattered, of people whose native languages use different writing systems. > Sometimes the agencies may explicitly invite comment from others > based beyond the US borders, as was done around the end of the JPA > proceeding. But even when they do not extend explicit invitations - > they must, per the APA - be able to demonstrate, especially in the > hypothetical case of a future lawsuit, that they took all > submissions and comments into account. Including yours. In > Washington's insider politics, companies from around the globe - > represented by their super-well-paid DC counsel - submit reams of > responses to US regulatory proceedings; typically highlighting how > many US employees they have and how whatever they want serves the US > national public interest, by coincidence. So, to the extent that the submission of these responses is effective, it will have the effect of increasing the degree to which US government policies are captured by the interests of international big business, independently of whether the firms in question are US based or not? This is not the kind of internationalization of Internet governance that I would consider to be worthwhile. > And now, for: > >> > Good luck to all of us globally crowd-sourcing the needed >> > disciplines and knowledge together, and debating not one - but a >> > whole pile of norms and procedures, and how they may - or may not - >> > apply at multiple levels of analysis, to various aspects of Internet >> > Governance. >> >> I would suggest that that "ECTF" ("Enhanced Cooperation Task Force") >> structure, that I have been proposing, should be suitable for this >> purpose. > > My comment: that might sound good...except I don;t know the rules by > which your ECTF would play (beyond everyone is eligible to get in > the game), nor the mission statement. So the deus ex machina ECTF > ball remains in your court : ) I'm not sure about the way forward for developing a more concrete proposal. One possible course of action would be for me to write up my current ideas in the form of an Internet Draft (ID), solicit feedback, revise the ID, and repeat repeatedly. I suspect however that it might be very difficult or impossible to engage governments in that kind of process. Alternatively, I wonder whether it would be possible to create, even without offcial blessing from any UN body (which in the current climate is clearly impossible to obtain), a WGIG like multistakeholder working group that would work out a concrete proposal. Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start with the ID based process, using it to a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder working group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like multistakeholder group. Does this sound reasonable? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 19 03:40:04 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:40:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: Fouad Bajwa wrote: ... > >On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, >at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go >again! > >-- Foo > I know we all hate the US, and I am as good at that as anyone sometimes. And I know everything good that is bad for you come from the US. But in this case, I beleive Skype originated in Luxembourg and is still based there. Yes it was bought by Microsoft, but I am not sure that makes it a US based product. 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 kovenronald at aol.com Tue Jun 19 03:47:09 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: <8CF1C06DD948835-1DB4-15E7A@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> I think Skype is from Estonia, Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: governance Sent: Tue, Jun 19, 2012 9:40 am Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP Fouad Bajwa wrote: ... > >On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, >at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go >again! > >-- Foo > I know we all hate the US, and I am as good at that as anyone sometimes. And I know everything good that is bad for you come from the US. But in this case, I beleive Skype originated in Luxembourg and is still based there. Yes it was bought by Microsoft, but I am not sure that makes it a US based product. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 19 04:12:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:12:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: (Skype/Sweden? Whatever!) "Gulf states crack down on Twitter users" Twitter's a U.S. company, so that's OK then... Adam >Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >... > >> >>On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, >>at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go >>again! >> >>-- Foo >> > > >I know we all hate the US, and I am as good at that as anyone sometimes. >And I know everything good that is bad for you come from the US. > >But in this case, I beleive Skype originated in Luxembourg and is >still based there. >Yes it was bought by Microsoft, but I am not sure that makes it a US >based product. > >avri > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Jun 19 04:53:14 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:53:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > "Gulf states crack down on Twitter users" > > > Twitter's a U.S. company, so that's OK then… No, national action is insufficient in the face of these imperialist beheamoths, what's needed is a UN Tweet Investigation Team (UNTWIT). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 04:54:21 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:54:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: I am not going to complain here but did you know that I am forced to register on the FT website in order to read that Gulf crackdown on twitter article otherwise it throws me on to the front page??? Would anyone be willing to just copy and paste here that article for convenience? No, thats actually becoming fun now, lets bash Twitter, oh no, Facebook, nah, Google! Hey, Skype? Its ironic that in some instances, the bashing does happen on US based products but what would people say about Asterisk, SIP, Google Talk, Google+ Messenger, Jabber, IRC, Yahoo Chat, Adobe Connect, WebEx etc that all support voice based activity, some of them European and some US and some open source community oriented development. Someone Ethiopia dealing with the regulatory de-regularization is just getting it all wrong but then again thats a well perceived example from Pakistan and Middle Eastern countries to restrict Voip so that the national exchequer makes some good load of money, may also need to create a Universal Service Fund, a possible internet innovation support fund and other activities to support a thriving telecom sector. So the interest is completely economic and nothing else. One thing is clear, the recent visit of Google's CEO to Pakistan has sparked both positive and negative feelings in the citizenry here. At one side Google seems to be support FoE in the developing world and in this case Pakistan but on the other hand it wants to use its technologies to help the government implement surveillance which is a privacy breach as there is more legitimate movement across the borders than just extremist activity so its a mixed situation and no one criteria to judge whats going on. On the otherhand, in Ethiopia, its all economic and I believe they should remove this restriction on skype after a bit of global media bashing.... Do you think one day Development Aid to such countries will require them to have more friendly and less restrictive regimes to FoE? Best Fouad On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > (Skype/Sweden? Whatever!) > > "Gulf states crack down on Twitter users" > > > Twitter's a U.S. company, so that's OK then... > > Adam > > > >> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> >>> On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, >>> at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go >>> again! >>> >>> -- Foo >>> >> >> >> I know we all hate the US, and I am as good at that as anyone sometimes. >> And I know everything good that is bad for you come from the US. >> >> But in this case, I beleive Skype originated in Luxembourg and is still >> based there. >> Yes it was bought by Microsoft, but I am not sure that makes it a US based >> product. >> >> avri >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 04:58:06 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:58:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: +1, we should all completely support the UNTWITWIT motion and act as ironic as possible along the lines of Internet Censorship at its best on US products! May the force of the Tweeters be with you! --- Foooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Gulf states crack down on Twitter users" > > > Twitter's a U.S. company, so that's OK then… > > > No, national action is insufficient in the face of these imperialist > beheamoths, what's needed is a UN Tweet Investigation Team (UNTWIT). > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 05:13:22 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:13:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP In-Reply-To: References: <1339839328.45171.YahooMailClassic@web171103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <728F6A9D-B22F-4FB2-A5D3-00C695350BE6@uzh.ch> <1339883429601916500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: At 1:54 PM +0500 6/19/12, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >I am not going to complain here but did you know that I am forced to >register on the FT website in order to read that Gulf crackdown on >twitter article otherwise it throws me on to the front page??? Would >anyone be willing to just copy and paste here that article for >convenience? Apologies, thought it was on the open side of the site, one of the few teasers. Free registration. Adam >No, thats actually becoming fun now, lets bash Twitter, oh no, >Facebook, nah, Google! Hey, Skype? > >Its ironic that in some instances, the bashing does happen on US based >products but what would people say about Asterisk, SIP, Google Talk, >Google+ Messenger, Jabber, IRC, Yahoo Chat, Adobe Connect, WebEx etc >that all support voice based activity, some of them European and some >US and some open source community oriented development. > >Someone Ethiopia dealing with the regulatory de-regularization is just >getting it all wrong but then again thats a well perceived example >from Pakistan and Middle Eastern countries to restrict Voip so that >the national exchequer makes some good load of money, may also need to >create a Universal Service Fund, a possible internet innovation >support fund and other activities to support a thriving telecom >sector. So the interest is completely economic and nothing else. > > One thing is clear, the recent visit of Google's CEO to Pakistan has >sparked both positive and negative feelings in the citizenry here. At >one side Google seems to be support FoE in the developing world and in >this case Pakistan but on the other hand it wants to use its >technologies to help the government implement surveillance which is a >privacy breach as there is more legitimate movement across the borders >than just extremist activity so its a mixed situation and no one >criteria to judge whats going on. > >On the otherhand, in Ethiopia, its all economic and I believe they >should remove this restriction on skype after a bit of global media >bashing.... > >Do you think one day Development Aid to such countries will require >them to have more friendly and less restrictive regimes to FoE? > >Best > >Fouad > >On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> (Skype/Sweden? Whatever!) >> >> "Gulf states crack down on Twitter users" >> >> >> >> Twitter's a U.S. company, so that's OK then... >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> >>>> On the other hand, despite the fact that such a ban exists on Skype, >>>> at the end of the day skype is a US based product, oh no, here we go >>>> again! >>>> >>>> -- Foo >>>> >>> >>> >>> I know we all hate the US, and I am as good at that as anyone sometimes. >>> And I know everything good that is bad for you come from the US. >>> >>> But in this case, I beleive Skype originated in Luxembourg and is still >>> based there. >>> Yes it was bought by Microsoft, but I am not sure that makes it a US based >>> product. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > >-- >Regards. >-------------------------- >Fouad Bajwa >ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor >My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 05:52:36 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:52:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48320F8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48320F8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <4FE04BE4.9040208@gmail.com> Parminder Once again you storm the ramparts to be beaten back variously by arguments for "US exceptionalism", effectiveness over legitimacy, multistakeholderism, anti-UN (world government, entrée John Boltonites) and a preference for reform over anything more "radical". It would not be a problem if your seemingly "radical" views (which are rather mainstream if one takes the legitimacy issue seriously) were engaged with on its own terms instead of posturing that passes for analysis. It would be wonderful to see more people on this list taking the reform position as tactically necessary for the strategic goal of a legitimate internet governance for all, but in my cursory review except for one reformist-multistakeholderist this seems not to be the case. This is such a pity since it adopts a forlorn approach to internet governance and flies in the face of all the measures even ICANN has taken in response to crits on its legitimacy. It seems like some contributors to this list seek to be more Catholic than the Pope! Keep up the good work on this list which imho is a rather hostile environment for these types of views. Perhaps especially for those who hold to US exceptionalism even with the horrible Patriot Act you could suggest a hegemonic role without the necessity for such an act. But then you would not only be unproductive and contrary but an idealist too... what a complex bind... Peace Riaz On 2012/06/18 10:57 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Better than continuing to build these pipe dreams, many of us have found it far more productive, as well as a learning experience for all, to get started solving what we can with a broader outlook for its impact on problems we can't solve yet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Jun 19 06:31:57 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:31:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> Message-ID: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:58:08PM +0200, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote a message of 50 lines which said: > That means that there are more non-US controlled root servers than > US controlled one. The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as highly unlikely ). All the copies blindly serve the same root zone and this is the control of this zone (by the USG) which is important. > Look: http://www.root-servers.org/ > > - ISC: 49 servers > - ICANN: 112 servers The actual number of machines is irrelevant: all ISC (or ICANN) boxes belong to the same cluster, have the same configuration and are managed centrally. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Jun 19 09:34:54 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:34:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Euro_Parliament_workshop_on_=93Faci?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ng_Challenges_to_the_Internet_Governance_Regime=3A_A_Eur?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?opean_Perspective_Workshop=94?= Message-ID: happening now, #IGEU http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2012/06/livestream-facing-challenges-to-the-internet-governance-regime-a-european-perspective-workshop/ *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Jun 19 09:46:42 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:46:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 background info 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The following document on the ITU website also backs who is accredited to attend the WCIT: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/model-instrument-accreditation-wcit-12.docx -- Foo On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. wrote: > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT-background-brief1.pdf > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 09:55:40 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:55:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 background info 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An important note was that the ITR review proposal resolution/notification was made in 2006 but the world took notice only last year about it as we near it. http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/itr-eg/files/resolution146.pdf -- Foo On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The following document on the ITU website also backs who is accredited > to attend the WCIT: > > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/model-instrument-accreditation-wcit-12.docx > > -- Foo > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Sérgio Alves Jr. > wrote: >> http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT-background-brief1.pdf >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 19 10:09:25 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:09:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> Message-ID: <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its > operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as > highly unlikely > ). Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as infinitesimally unlikely, similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone. I am merely pointing out that _if_ the US government were to decide to do something insanely stupid, there would be mechanisms by which those actions could be addressed (in a stunningly destructive way). This is why I've made analogy to Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine. 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Jun 19 10:18:45 2012 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:18:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Can we allude that it is infinitesimally unlikely that the US government to engage in nuclear war but its the only country to have every dropped an atomic bomb to large masses of innocent civilians ... On 19 June 2012 17:09, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its > > operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as > > highly unlikely > > ). > > Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root > server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as > infinitesimally unlikely, similar in probability to the US government > "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone. I am merely > pointing out that _if_ the US government were to decide to do something > insanely stupid, there would be mechanisms by which those actions could be > addressed (in a stunningly destructive way). This is why I've made analogy > to Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine. > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh www.transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 13:08:39 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:08:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] "Oversight" In-Reply-To: <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> References: , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48312263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2187DC7@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <449702B7-86FB-4379-9795-0EAACEE42195@uzh.ch> <4FD8798B.1000907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2188E9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDACA09.7080501@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2189948@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <4FDDD549.7070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218B138@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The law under which ICANN is incorporated can determine and limit what ICANN can do or not do. BTW, if it indeed does not so determine, and I have asked this question a thousand times, why then not let ICANN be incorporated under international law. Why do all the arguments change when we transit from US law to international law. Because, as I explained before, international law is mostly designed to insulate organizations from legal accountability, it is more about immunities than accountabilities, and offers ordinary individuals challenging it fewer rights. And if you want to know of a practical instance; I was reading about the ICANN's decision last year to do away with registry-registrar cross ownership restriction (BTW a most retrogressive decision!), Wrong. But tangential to this discussion. and I found frequent mentions of things like ' as we discussed with competition authorities'. First of all I would like to know from the people more closely involved, which competition authorities did ICANN talk to. I take it to be US government's because I know of no international level competition authority. Apparently, the inputs from US's competition authorities helped ICANN take this most retrograde decision. Actually the USG ginned up an FTC statement that criticized and opposed the decision. And so did the EC. So get your facts right, then comment. I think that competition authorities of many other countries - perhaps even of India- would not have advised in favour of such a bad decision, which as I would separately discuss, would now lead to privatisation of important bits digital lingua and work against competitive practices in the domain name industry. If you start by assuming it is a bad decision and then ask me to explain why it happened, we are not having a discussion about political oversight or policy, we are having a discussion about your own prejudices. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 19 13:14:16 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:14:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE04BE4.9040208@gmail.com> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D48320F8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <4FE04BE4.9040208@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > It would be wonderful to see more people on this list taking the reform position as tactically necessary for the strategic goal of a legitimate internet governance for all, but in my cursory review except for one reformist-multistakeholderist this seems not to be the case. Reform is necessary for the strategic goal of a legitimate Internet governance for all. I expect that many folks have different views regarding evolutionary reform (my personal leaning) versus revolutionary reform (i.e. proposals which impose new "authority" structures over the existing system) FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. The author is not responsible for damage to your neural activity that may result by reading these words. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Jun 20 00:40:40 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:40:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2012 8:45 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start > with the ID based process, using it to > a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder working > group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time > b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like > multistakeholder group. > > Does this sound reasonable? Yes. Ciao, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 20 01:52:59 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:22:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20120601091105.7A2501F5A@quill.bollow.ch> 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> Message-ID: <4FE1653B.7080705@itforchange.net> 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. 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. 'Political' refers to areas where there is a greater occurrence of clearly differential interests, contexts and situations ,and so on, of the affected parties. 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). > 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 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 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. > 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. 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. 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. > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 20 02:03:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 10:10 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > On Jun 19, 2012 8:45 AM, "Norbert Bollow" > wrote: > > > Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start > > with the ID based process, using it to > > a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder working > > group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time > > b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like > > multistakeholder group. > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > Yes. > With the comments given in my last email, yes, to me too, it sounds reasonable thing to try out. parminder > Ciao, > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 20 02:25:17 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:55:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 07:39 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> The physical control of the machine is not important (unless its >> operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as >> highly unlikely >> ). >> > Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as infinitesimally unlikely, Yes, you did give the wrong impression, and argued it again and again as the primary basis of your satisfaction with the status quo on 'oversight'. This was the strongest pillar on which your defence of the status quo was based, and now you apologize for probably having given the wrong impression?!. In fact, when I kept responding that the chance of root server operators refusing to serve the root zone was very very small, you never seemed to agree. > similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone. There is enough evidence that US would act unilaterally to use all means at its command in service of what it percieves as its interests. Kivuva speaks of nuclear bombing, but even in contemporary times, US freqently uses drones to bomb foreign lands and people in contravention of all international law, it has unilaterally 'pulled out' the operations on globally servicing compaines (like megauploads) without any avenues for redress, has often used the power of US based companies in illegitimate ways (wikileaks), it disallows companies based in the US, that provide vital digital services, like virus protection, from servicing countries, even online, that it has blacklisted......... the list of such unilaterlism is unending. Your threshold for what you consider as evidence for the possibility that US may use its command over root zone even in what it perceives as emergency conditions is simply too high to be realistic. > I am merely pointing out that _if_ the US government were to decide to do something insanely stupid, there would be mechanisms by which those actions could be addressed (in a stunningly destructive way). This is why I've made analogy to Mutual Assured Destruction nuclear doctrine. > As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and calibrated way than the scenario you build, and find safety under. But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? parminder > Regards, > -drc > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 20 02:41:57 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:41:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com> To those supporting this, what does strong government participation mean? - Participate as equals in a multistakeholder group? - Be a majority in such a group? - Have a voice that is more equal than the other voices? avri parminder wrote: > >On Wednesday 20 June 2012 10:10 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 19, 2012 8:45 AM, "Norbert Bollow" > > wrote: >> >> > Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start >> > with the ID based process, using it to >> > a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder >working >> > group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time >> > b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like >> > multistakeholder group. >> > >> > Does this sound reasonable? >> >> Yes. >> > >With the comments given in my last email, yes, to me too, it sounds >reasonable thing to try out. >parminder > >> Ciao, >> >> Andrea >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 20 04:32:52 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:32:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com> (message from Avri Doria on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:41:57 +0200) References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > To those supporting this, what does strong government participation mean? > > - Participate as equals in a multistakeholder group? > - Be a majority in such a group? > - Have a voice that is more equal than the other voices? My current idea is to aim for about 1/3 of the persons on the working group to be governmental delegates. I would suggest that every working group member would participate as an individual and with equal weight in determinations of rough consensus. But of course, the weight that is given by the group to any particular view will depend on the perceived expertise of the speaker with regard to the topic under consideration. For example when participating in such a group, when the topic under discussion is how the views and needs of poor people in developing countries can be appropriately taken in consideration in ECTF, I will, in the determination of when I would hum (or however the group chooses to measure rough consensus) want to give greater weight to the views of anyone who has grown up in such conditions than e.g. to the views of a Western industrialist. When the topic under discussion is how to structure ECTF processes in order to avoid making participation unreasonably difficult or frustrating for people with non-technical public administration background, I will want to give greater weight to what the government representatives say than to what e.g. engineers say who have never worked in a government context. I would expect the other working group participants to similarly apply common sense in weighing viewpoints, so that whatever rough consensus results, will be as reasonable a recommendation on the way forward as what can possibly be achieved. 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 Jun 20 07:39:49 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:39:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com>,<20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Norbert, So far so good, you got a yes from me too. Since noone else can make sense of enhanced cooperation, we might as well give it a go. I won't belabor the points re US domestic regulatory proceedings and their - relative degree of openness; and the coincidence that it is global big business that pays greatest attention. For a process at the global level, or processes that cross levels, of course different requirements come into play. But my point remains that when a resource-allocation process is underway, having some standard of 'fair and open' by which that process can be measured. Then folks unhappy with the results - I agree with you analysis of the Bulgarian case in point - have recourse. Anyway, you got an ID to write, so don't want to distract you. best, 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, June 20, 2012 4:32 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) Avri Doria wrote: > To those supporting this, what does strong government participation mean? > > - Participate as equals in a multistakeholder group? > - Be a majority in such a group? > - Have a voice that is more equal than the other voices? My current idea is to aim for about 1/3 of the persons on the working group to be governmental delegates. I would suggest that every working group member would participate as an individual and with equal weight in determinations of rough consensus. But of course, the weight that is given by the group to any particular view will depend on the perceived expertise of the speaker with regard to the topic under consideration. For example when participating in such a group, when the topic under discussion is how the views and needs of poor people in developing countries can be appropriately taken in consideration in ECTF, I will, in the determination of when I would hum (or however the group chooses to measure rough consensus) want to give greater weight to the views of anyone who has grown up in such conditions than e.g. to the views of a Western industrialist. When the topic under discussion is how to structure ECTF processes in order to avoid making participation unreasonably difficult or frustrating for people with non-technical public administration background, I will want to give greater weight to what the government representatives say than to what e.g. engineers say who have never worked in a government context. I would expect the other working group participants to similarly apply common sense in weighing viewpoints, so that whatever rough consensus results, will be as reasonable a recommendation on the way forward as what can possibly be achieved. 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 drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 20 11:15:52 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:15:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> Message-ID: You can allude to anything you like, however whether or not it helps move discussion forward on Internet governance is probably a more relevant question. Regards, -drc On Jun 19, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Kivuva wrote: > Can we allude that it is infinitesimally unlikely that the US government to engage in nuclear war but its the only country to have every dropped an atomic bomb to large masses of innocent civilians ... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Jun 20 12:27:20 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:27:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, parminder wrote: >> Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as infinitesimally unlikely, > Yes, you did give the wrong impression, and argued it again and again as the primary basis of your satisfaction with the status quo on 'oversight'. Actually, what I have argued ("again and again") is that there is no unilateral action in root zone management. I stand by that argument and challenge you to provide _fact based_ counter-argument, not hypotheticals. > This was the strongest pillar on which your defence of the status quo was based, and now you apologize for probably having given the wrong impression?!. Err, no. The "strongest pillar" is the fact that the Internet operates by cooperative action of independent players. My apology was to those who might have mis-interpreted my comments to infer I believe the root server operators exercise day-to-day editorial control over the root zone. They do not. What the do (voluntarily) provide is the platform by which the root zone is published. As such, they have the ability to not provide that platform if they so choose. I'm guessing that everyone who understands the issues here, including those involved in the US government's part of "oversight", are aware of the implications of forcing the root server operators to not provide the publishing platform. > In fact, when I kept responding that the chance of root server operators refusing to serve the root zone was very very small, you never seemed to agree. Of course it is very small (although I'll admit missing where you argued this), however that probability is infinitely _larger_ than the probability that the US government will act in a way that would require that action. You pose hypotheticals of situations that will not occur and I point out that even if those hypothetical do occur, there are mechanisms by which the Internet community can respond. I'm sorry if this confused you. >> similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone. > There is enough evidence that US would act unilaterally to use all means at its command in service of what it percieves as its interests. Kivuva speaks of nuclear bombing, but even in contemporary times, US freqently [...] the list of such unilaterlism is unending. Yet in that "unending" list, I challenge you to provide even a _single_ example in which the US government has used its role in root management to do _anything_ that didn't abide by existing root management policies and practices. I have no doubt the US government, like any other government, will protect its own interests, unilaterally if necessary. However, generally speaking, when one wishes to protect their own interests, they don't typically destroy that which they are trying to protect. If the US government were to act as you propose, the only long term effects would be to destabilize the Internet, promote a fracturing of the Internet name space, and remove any role the US government might have in Internet management oversight. > Your threshold for what you consider as evidence for the possibility that US may use its command over root zone even in what it perceives as emergency conditions is simply too high to be realistic. As I've tried to describe, US-based entities (ICANN, Verisign, NTIA) have "command" over the editing of the root zone. They do not have "command" over its publication and use. > As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and calibrated way than the scenario you build, and find safety under. Actually, I find safety in the knowledge of how the Internet works. It's much more reliable than myths and hypotheticals. > But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 03:23:29 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:23:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] press briefing WCIT Message-ID: <3ABFF048B52946A7B9A5F0467EA03487@UserVAIO> PRESS BRIEFING Briefing for media on the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) Journalists from anywhere in the world can join this event via audioconference over Adobe Connect – see simple connection details below On 3-14 December in Dubai, UAE, ITU will convene a landmark conference to review the international treaty that is the basis of today’s hyper-connected world: the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). This binding global treaty outlines the principles which govern the way international voice, data and video traffic is handled, and lays the foundation for ongoing innovation and market growth. It was last negotiated in 1988, and there is consensus that the text now needs to be updated to reflect the dramatically different information and communication technology (ICT) landscape of the 21st century. This conference has been generating considerable media interest, particularly in relation to a supposed focus on Internet governance and taxation of Internet traffic. ITU is convening this briefing to explain the process and provide information on the actual issues that are on the table. The briefing will take place immediately after the close of the final meeting of the ITU Council Working Group on WCIT, which is the central preparatory group for the conference. Speakers: - Dr Hamadoun Touré, ITU Secretary-General - Mr Malcolm Johnson, Director, Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, ITU - ITU experts Richard Hill, Alexander Ntoko and Preetam Maloor Date/time: Friday, 22 June, 2012, at 6pm-8pm CET (Geneva time) Place: ITU headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland Adobe Connect connection details Link: http://itu.adobeconnect.com/wcitbrief/ Steps to get connected: · Click on the link, and then access the conference by selecting Guest. · Type in your name – this will appear in the participants’ list on the sidebar · Questions can be submitted to the panelists over email to: pressevent at itu.int. Please indicate the media organization you represent when submitting your question. We invite you to confirm your wish to participate remotely to Ning Wang at ning.wang at itu.int. Sarah Parkes Chief, Media Relations and Public Information Phone : +41 22 730 6135 Mobile: +41 79 599 1439 Web: www.itu.int Twitter: @ITU_NEWS Facebook: www.itu.int/facebook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 03:57:22 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:57:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Free Speech for Computers? Message-ID: <4FE2D3E2.6060204@gmail.com> Op-Ed Contributor Free Speech for Computers? By TIM WU Published: June 19, 2012 DO machines speak? If so, do they have a constitutional right to free speech? For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. This may sound like a fanciful question, a matter of philosophy or science fiction. But it’s become a real issue with important consequences. In today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers. On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends. In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking,” and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. This is a bad idea that threatens the government’s ability to oversee companies and protect consumers. The argument that machines speak was first made in the context of Internet search. In 2003, in a civil suit brought by a firm dissatisfied with the ranking of Google’s search results, Google asserted that its search results were constitutionally protected speech. (In an unpublished opinion, the court ruled in Google’s favor.) And this year, facing increasing federal scrutiny, Google commissioned Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, to draft a much broader and more elaborate version of the same argument. As Professor Volokh declares in his paper: “Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search, and other search engines are speakers.” To a non-lawyer the position may sound bizarre, but here is the logic. Take a newspaper advice columnist like Ann Landers: surely her answers to readers’ questions were a form of speech. Likewise, when you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers. If such answers are speech, then any government efforts to regulate Google, like any efforts to bowdlerize Ann Landers, must be examined as censorship. And that’s where theory hits reality. Consider that Google has attracted attention from both antitrust and consumer protection officials after accusations that it has used its dominance in search to hinder competitors and in some instances has not made clear the line between advertisement and results. Consider that the “decisions” made by Facebook’s computers may involve widely sharing your private information; or that the recommendations made by online markets like Amazon could one day serve as a means for disadvantaging competing publishers. Ordinarily, such practices could violate laws meant to protect consumers. But if we call computerized decisions “speech,” the judiciary must consider these laws as potential censorship, making the First Amendment, for these companies, a formidable anti-regulatory tool. Is there a compelling argument that computerized decisions should be considered speech? As a matter of legal logic, there is some similarity among Google, Ann Landers, Socrates and other providers of answers. But if you look more closely, the comparison falters. Socrates was a man who died for his views; computer programs are utilitarian instruments meant to serve us. Protecting a computer’s “speech” is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny. It is true that the First Amendment has been stretched to protect commercial speech (like advertisements) as well as, more controversially, political expenditures made by corporations. But commercial speech has always been granted limited protection. And while the issue of corporate speech is debatable, campaign expenditures are at least a part of the political system, the core concern of the First Amendment. The line can be easily drawn: as a general rule, nonhuman or automated choices should not be granted the full protection of the First Amendment, and often should not be considered “speech” at all. (Where a human does make a specific choice about specific content, the question is different.) Defenders of Google’s position have argued that since humans programmed the computers that are “speaking,” the computers have speech rights as if by digital inheritance. But the fact that a programmer has the First Amendment right to program pretty much anything he likes doesn’t mean his creation is thereby endowed with his constitutional rights. Doctor Frankenstein’s monster could walk and talk, but that didn’t qualify him to vote in the doctor’s place. Computers make trillions of invisible decisions each day; the possibility that each decision could be protected speech should give us pause. To Google’s credit, while it has claimed First Amendment rights for its search results, it has never formally asserted that it has the constitutional right to ignore privacy or antitrust laws. As a nation we must hesitate before allowing the higher principles of the Bill of Rights to become little more than lowly tools of commercial advantage. To give computers the rights intended for humans is to elevate our machines above ourselves. Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia, is the author of “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/opinion/free-speech-for-computers.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 21 05:07:58 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:07:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> (message from Lee W McKnight on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:39:49 +0000) References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com>,<20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Norbert, > So far so good, you got a yes from me too. Thanks a lot to everyone who has provided encouragement and other feedback. I'll go forward and write that ID (which drafts a call for a multistakeholder working group including an input document) as quickly as I reasonably can. (There are some contraints due to other resposibilities including a deadline for submitting a revised list of panelists for my Baku IGF workshop proposal, (No.34) Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture -- it's about the idea of including inclusion of URL metadata in e.g. MP3 and OGG audio files, so that anyone who received a copy of the file can easily visit the copyright holder's website and spend money there. If you would like to be a panelist there, or if you can recommend someone, please let me know. The most recent version of the background paper is at http://bollow.ch/papers/SustainableDigitalCulture.pdf ) 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Jun 21 05:45:39 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:45:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5B3898E6-047A-46E5-BC6C-C191BB1C8E73@uzh.ch> Hi Andrea On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > On Jun 19, 2012 8:45 AM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > > Hmm... maybe the best available course of action will be to start > > with the ID based process, using it to > > a) create an input document for a WGIG like multistakeholder working > > group with strong governmental participation, and at the same time > > b) build credibility for the proposal to initiate such a WGIG like > > multistakeholder group. > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > Yes. > I seem to recall that at the CSTD meeting, a number of European governments spoke against launching an enhanced cooperation working group. So I'm just wondering, does the Commission have a different position on the matter, and are you encouraging civil society to spend time on this non-starter in an official capacity? Or is it just that you personally think it'd be a good thing? Thanks 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jun 21 05:53:00 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:53:00 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] news from Baku Message-ID: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> 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)   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 21 06:33:24 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:33:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Free Speech for Computers? In-Reply-To: <4FE2D3E2.6060204@gmail.com> References: <4FE2D3E2.6060204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEB23@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Somewhat related, although I did not advocate human rights for social machines: http://wigit.ischool.syr.edu/index.php/news/80-social-machines-just-hanging-out Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:57 AM Subject: [governance] Free Speech for Computers? Op-Ed Contributor Free Speech for Computers? By TIM WU Published: June 19, 2012 DO machines speak? If so, do they have a constitutional right to free speech? For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. This may sound like a fanciful question, a matter of philosophy or science fiction. But it’s become a real issue with important consequences. In today’s world, we have delegated many of our daily decisions to computers. On the drive to work, a GPS device suggests the best route; at your desk, Microsoft Word guesses at your misspellings, and Facebook recommends new friends. In the past few years, the suggestion has been made that when computers make such choices they are “speaking,” and enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. This is a bad idea that threatens the government’s ability to oversee companies and protect consumers. The argument that machines speak was first made in the context of Internet search. In 2003, in a civil suit brought by a firm dissatisfied with the ranking of Google’s search results, Google asserted that its search results were constitutionally protected speech. (In an unpublished opinion, the court ruled in Google’s favor.) And this year, facing increasing federal scrutiny, Google commissioned Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, to draft a much broader and more elaborate version of the same argument. As Professor Volokh declares in his paper: “Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search, and other search engines are speakers.” To a non-lawyer the position may sound bizarre, but here is the logic. Take a newspaper advice columnist like Ann Landers: surely her answers to readers’ questions were a form of speech. Likewise, when you turn to Google with a question, the search engine must decide, at that moment, what “answers” to give, and in what order to put those answers. If such answers are speech, then any government efforts to regulate Google, like any efforts to bowdlerize Ann Landers, must be examined as censorship. And that’s where theory hits reality. Consider that Google has attracted attention from both antitrust and consumer protection officials after accusations that it has used its dominance in search to hinder competitors and in some instances has not made clear the line between advertisement and results. Consider that the “decisions” made by Facebook’s computers may involve widely sharing your private information; or that the recommendations made by online markets like Amazon could one day serve as a means for disadvantaging competing publishers. Ordinarily, such practices could violate laws meant to protect consumers. But if we call computerized decisions “speech,” the judiciary must consider these laws as potential censorship, making the First Amendment, for these companies, a formidable anti-regulatory tool. Is there a compelling argument that computerized decisions should be considered speech? As a matter of legal logic, there is some similarity among Google, Ann Landers, Socrates and other providers of answers. But if you look more closely, the comparison falters. Socrates was a man who died for his views; computer programs are utilitarian instruments meant to serve us. Protecting a computer’s “speech” is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny. It is true that the First Amendment has been stretched to protect commercial speech (like advertisements) as well as, more controversially, political expenditures made by corporations. But commercial speech has always been granted limited protection. And while the issue of corporate speech is debatable, campaign expenditures are at least a part of the political system, the core concern of the First Amendment. The line can be easily drawn: as a general rule, nonhuman or automated choices should not be granted the full protection of the First Amendment, and often should not be considered “speech” at all. (Where a human does make a specific choice about specific content, the question is different.) Defenders of Google’s position have argued that since humans programmed the computers that are “speaking,” the computers have speech rights as if by digital inheritance. But the fact that a programmer has the First Amendment right to program pretty much anything he likes doesn’t mean his creation is thereby endowed with his constitutional rights. Doctor Frankenstein’s monster could walk and talk, but that didn’t qualify him to vote in the doctor’s place. Computers make trillions of invisible decisions each day; the possibility that each decision could be protected speech should give us pause. To Google’s credit, while it has claimed First Amendment rights for its search results, it has never formally asserted that it has the constitutional right to ignore privacy or antitrust laws. As a nation we must hesitate before allowing the higher principles of the Bill of Rights to become little more than lowly tools of commercial advantage. To give computers the rights intended for humans is to elevate our machines above ourselves. Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia, is the author of “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/opinion/free-speech-for-computers.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 08:01:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:01:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?UN_Non-Takeover_Of_The_Net=3A_ITU?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=92s_Tour=E9_Calls_For_Documents_To_Be_Public?= Message-ID: <4FE30D1F.2030406@gmail.com> UN Non-Takeover Of The Net: ITU’s Touré Calls For Documents To Be Public Published on 20 June 2012 @ 10:36 pm EmailShare Print This Post Print This Post By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Secretary General Hamadoun Touré today in Geneva announced he would propose to the ITU Council later this month to make the draft documents for the much-debated International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) publicly accessible. According to participants at today’s meeting , Touré said he would also recommend a public consultation on the draft ITR, to be held during the last preparatory meeting for the December World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) at which the ITR will be updated. With this initiative, Touré is answering ever louder calls for access to ITR negotiations. He referred to an open letter from civil society sent to him about the issue in May and said, member states, too, could hold consultations on the controversial treaty. The Netherlands has already done so. There was near-unanimous support for the opening up, with some member states urging not to wait for the Council meeting. The US delegation said that they had already made documents available. Details on the upcoming Council meeting are here . By opening up the documents, member state representatives also hope to address concerns that the ITR would lead to more ITU control over the net. Touré strongly rejected the notion that the ITRs would impact the free flow of information. Restrictions on communication have been foreseen by governments in Article 34 of the ITU constitution, and according to Touré, such restrictions are in place in most member states to protect against copyright piracy, defamation, hate speech and also certain forms of political speech. Touré also defended plans to address interconnection and traffic cost in the ITR, arguing that connectivity is still too expensive in many developing counties and international mobile roaming prices were seen as too high by many. Yet the idea of a “sender pays” regime and potential limitations to a completely agnostic and neutral data transport network have resulted in stern warnings from the internet services and platform providers. In the push for more transparency, a WCIT leaks website was set up. A first background brief on the WCIT has been published by the ITU secretariat here [pdf]. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 21 09:01:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:01:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?UN_Non-Takeover_Of_The_Net=3A_ITU?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Tour=C3=A9_Calls_For_Documents_To_Be_Public?= In-Reply-To: <4FE30D1F.2030406@gmail.com> References: <4FE30D1F.2030406@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4FE30D1F.2030406 at gmail.com>, at 15:01:35 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes [ITU openness things] Call me cynical, but I think this indicates that the ITU already know they'll get what they want, so releasing documents and having "consultations" is just window-dressing to lull outsiders into a false sense of security, and give greater legitimacy to the outcome. -- 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 Thu Jun 21 11:33:22 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:33:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com>,<20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <92129aec-df63-4559-8445-f81145dc2493@email.android.com> This is a WG to talk about EC some more? If so, Personally I still think EC needs to come into the IGF instead of creating yet another little group. avri Norbert Bollow wrote: >Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Norbert, >> So far so good, you got a yes from me too. > >Thanks a lot to everyone who has provided encouragement and other >feedback. I'll go forward and write that ID (which drafts a call >for a multistakeholder working group including an input document) >as quickly as I reasonably can. > >(There are some contraints due to other resposibilities including a >deadline for submitting a revised list of panelists for my Baku IGF >workshop proposal, (No.34) Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture >-- it's about the idea of including inclusion of URL metadata in >e.g. MP3 and OGG audio files, so that anyone who received a copy of >the file can easily visit the copyright holder's website and spend >money there. If you would like to be a panelist there, or if you >can recommend someone, please let me know. The most recent version >of the background paper is at >http://bollow.ch/papers/SustainableDigitalCulture.pdf ) > >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 Thu Jun 21 14:27:24 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:27:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <92129aec-df63-4559-8445-f81145dc2493@email.android.com> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com>,<20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch>,<92129aec-df63-4559-8445-f81145dc2493@email.android.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EECFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Avri, We haven't seen Norbert's draft yet. So how could we know that his ECTF would not connect with/be part of IGF, depending upon one's optical lens? Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:33 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) This is a WG to talk about EC some more? If so, Personally I still think EC needs to come into the IGF instead of creating yet another little group. avri Norbert Bollow wrote: >Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Norbert, >> So far so good, you got a yes from me too. > >Thanks a lot to everyone who has provided encouragement and other >feedback. I'll go forward and write that ID (which drafts a call >for a multistakeholder working group including an input document) >as quickly as I reasonably can. > >(There are some contraints due to other resposibilities including a >deadline for submitting a revised list of panelists for my Baku IGF >workshop proposal, (No.34) Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture >-- it's about the idea of including inclusion of URL metadata in >e.g. MP3 and OGG audio files, so that anyone who received a copy of >the file can easily visit the copyright holder's website and spend >money there. If you would like to be a panelist there, or if you >can recommend someone, please let me know. The most recent version >of the background paper is at >http://bollow.ch/papers/SustainableDigitalCulture.pdf ) > >Greetings, >Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 21 14:58:15 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:58:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EECFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com>,<20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch>,<92129aec-df63-4559-8445-f81145dc2493@email.android.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EECFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Very true. Happy Mid Summer avri Lee W McKnight wrote: >Avri, > >We haven't seen Norbert's draft yet. > >So how could we know that his ECTF would not connect with/be part of >IGF, depending upon one's optical lens? > >Lee >________________________________________ >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria >[avri at acm.org] >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:33 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; >governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) > >This is a WG to talk about EC some more? >If so, >Personally I still think EC needs to come into the IGF instead of >creating yet another little group. > > >avri > > >Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> Norbert, >>> So far so good, you got a yes from me too. >> >>Thanks a lot to everyone who has provided encouragement and other >>feedback. I'll go forward and write that ID (which drafts a call >>for a multistakeholder working group including an input document) >>as quickly as I reasonably can. >> >>(There are some contraints due to other resposibilities including a >>deadline for submitting a revised list of panelists for my Baku IGF >>workshop proposal, (No.34) Standards for Sustainable Digital Culture >>-- it's about the idea of including inclusion of URL metadata in >>e.g. MP3 and OGG audio files, so that anyone who received a copy of >>the file can easily visit the copyright holder's website and spend >>money there. If you would like to be a panelist there, or if you >>can recommend someone, please let me know. The most recent version >>of the background paper is at >>http://bollow.ch/papers/SustainableDigitalCulture.pdf ) >> >>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 Thu Jun 21 15:19:04 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 20:19:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] ECTF (was Re: Chinese preparing for...) In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4831F540@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE07D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120618210950.F0291819F@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE13D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120619064345.C1295819F@quill.bollow.ch> <4FE16798.3030208@itforchange.net> <29fe08d2-682d-4669-a2ca-8e6c75d8b41c@email.android.com> <20120620083252.1F2A149F8@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EE747@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120621090758.CB55C78B6@quill.bollow.ch> <92129aec-df63-4559-8445-f81145dc2493@email.android.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EECFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 20:58:15 on Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Avri Doria writes >Happy Mid Summer I can tell that it's going to be a long day... :) -- 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 Fri Jun 22 00:25:46 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 09:55:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, parminder wrote: > >>> Sorry if I gave the wrong impression here. I consider the chances the root server operators would decide to refuse to serve the root zone as infinitesimally unlikely, >>> >> Yes, you did give the wrong impression, and argued it again and again as the primary basis of your satisfaction with the status quo on 'oversight'. >> > Actually, what I have argued ("again and again") is that there is no unilateral action in root zone management. I stand by that argument and challenge you to provide _fact based_ counter-argument, not hypotheticals. > I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that we are *not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of the root server operators not publishing the authoritative root zone file but the 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in fact do such a thing. Stephanie had spoken of this likelihood and not the 'technical possibility', and, in this regard, expressed disagreement with David. To quote Stephanie's email "unless its operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as highly unlikely.......... " And since you answered to this statement with an apology of possible misunderstanding, I was confounded, because I thought you have been saying all along that you indeed think that if the US did interfere with the root, the root server operators, other than the one under US gov contract, will in fact 'break free'. (Lee and others supported and built on this argument as the principal element in the discussion about possible misuse of US's control over the root.) I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and therefore the so called current distributed root server architecture *does not* provide us protection against likely improper interference of the US with the root. parminder > >> This was the strongest pillar on which your defence of the status quo was based, and now you apologize for probably having given the wrong impression?!. >> > Err, no. The "strongest pillar" is the fact that the Internet operates by cooperative action of independent players. My apology was to those who might have mis-interpreted my comments to infer I believe the root server operators exercise day-to-day editorial control over the root zone. They do not. What the do (voluntarily) provide is the platform by which the root zone is published. As such, they have the ability to not provide that platform if they so choose. I'm guessing that everyone who understands the issues here, including those involved in the US government's part of "oversight", are aware of the implications of forcing the root server operators to not provide the publishing platform. > > >> In fact, when I kept responding that the chance of root server operators refusing to serve the root zone was very very small, you never seemed to agree. >> > Of course it is very small (although I'll admit missing where you argued this), however that probability is infinitely _larger_ than the probability that the US government will act in a way that would require that action. You pose hypotheticals of situations that will not occur and I point out that even if those hypothetical do occur, there are mechanisms by which the Internet community can respond. I'm sorry if this confused you. > > >>> similar in probability to the US government "going rogue" in a way that would impact the root zone. >>> >> There is enough evidence that US would act unilaterally to use all means at its command in service of what it percieves as its interests. Kivuva speaks of nuclear bombing, but even in contemporary times, US freqently [...] the list of such unilaterlism is unending. >> > Yet in that "unending" list, I challenge you to provide even a _single_ example in which the US government has used its role in root management to do _anything_ that didn't abide by existing root management policies and practices. > > I have no doubt the US government, like any other government, will protect its own interests, unilaterally if necessary. However, generally speaking, when one wishes to protect their own interests, they don't typically destroy that which they are trying to protect. If the US government were to act as you propose, the only long term effects would be to destabilize the Internet, promote a fracturing of the Internet name space, and remove any role the US government might have in Internet management oversight. > > >> Your threshold for what you consider as evidence for the possibility that US may use its command over root zone even in what it perceives as emergency conditions is simply too high to be realistic. >> > As I've tried to describe, US-based entities (ICANN, Verisign, NTIA) have "command" over the editing of the root zone. They do not have "command" over its publication and use. > > >> As discussed before, things happen in a much more gradual and calibrated way than the scenario you build, and find safety under. >> > Actually, I find safety in the knowledge of how the Internet works. It's much more reliable than myths and hypotheticals. > > >> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >> > > They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 22 00:36:26 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:06:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE3F64A.5010601@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > SNIP > >> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >> > > They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? > The 'international oversight mechanism' for Internet's critical technical resources has to developed contextually, in a manner best appropriate to the purpose. While ensuring general public interest compliance, It has to specifically safeguard and strengthen (1) loose open ended consensus-oriented bottom up processes for tech standards development, (2) new open and bottom up participation models that are being built in the IG space. I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it. The needs IG are unique in many ways, especially with regard to its inherent globalness, and also in the challenge that it poses to statist powers and status quo. Therefore any existing model of international oversight may not be best to just cut paste to the new situation. This said, we have international oversight structures with regard to war crimes, some softer ones for human right abuses..... I am sure that there are more specific ones in technical spaces like marine traffic, global meteorology etc.... the world is trying to develop some for compliance to possible global climate change related policies.... parminder > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 11:13:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:13:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Job Posting: Intern, Internet Governance Forum Secretariat, Geneva Message-ID: http://unjobs.org/vacancies/1340327346798 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 22 11:30:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:30:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Background Briefs ITU-WCIT Message-ID: <26EDD14672A4471E9F98D94D95681718@UserVAIO> http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is being convened in December 2012 to review the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) which date from 1988. The ITU Secretariat has developed a number of Background Briefs on key issues that are expected to be discussed at the conference, as well as answers to a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that will be updated as necessary. If you have any questions about the documents below please contact Pressinfo at itu.int WCIT-12 Frequently Asked Questions -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdficon_small.gif Type: image/gif Size: 361 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 istaff.org Fri Jun 22 11:34:10 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:34:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Job Posting: Intern, Internet Governance Forum Secretariat, Geneva In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <631490D5-324B-4C20-97F5-6BA9C221BE2F@istaff.org> On Jun 22, 2012, at 11:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://unjobs.org/vacancies/1340327346798 Michael - That is excellent news - thanks for pointing this out! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No consumer reparable parts within. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 11:38:09 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:38:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Background Briefs ITU-WCIT In-Reply-To: <26EDD14672A4471E9F98D94D95681718@UserVAIO> References: <26EDD14672A4471E9F98D94D95681718@UserVAIO> Message-ID: And if you miss the press conference a recording will be available at : http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. Deirdre ** On 22 June 2012 11:30, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx > > The *World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) *is > being convened in December 2012 to review the International > Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs)which date from 1988. The ITU Secretariat has developed a number of > Background Briefs on key issues that are expected to be discussed at the > conference, as well as answers to a list of frequently asked questions > (FAQs) that will be updated as necessary. > If you have any questions about the documents below please contact > Pressinfo at itu.int > > WCIT-12 Frequently Asked Questions > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pdficon_small.gif Type: image/gif Size: 361 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Jun 22 12:06:35 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:06:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:25 AM, parminder wrote: > ** > > I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that we are > *not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of the root server > operators not publishing the authoritative root zone file but the > 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in fact do such a thing. > Stephanie had spoken of this likelihood and not the 'technical > possibility', and, in this regard, expressed disagreement with David. To > quote Stephanie's email "unless its operator decides to break free; unlike > David Conrad, I regard this as highly unlikely.......... " > > And since you answered to this statement with an apology of possible > misunderstanding, I was confounded, because I thought you have been saying > all along that you indeed think that if the US did interfere with the root, > the root server operators, other than the one under US gov contract, will > in fact 'break free'. (Lee and others supported and built on this argument > as the principal element in the discussion about possible misuse of US's > control over the root.) > > I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and therefore the so > called current distributed root server architecture *does not* provide us > protection against likely improper interference of the US with the root. > > parminder > > - - - > You are dead right, Parminder. But there are plenty of smart net professionals who know how to twist the architecture. In case of USG interference with the ICANN root zone, predicting the reactions of the 3 non US based root servers is rather uncertain. Their operators may be politically sensitive and under pressure exerted by the powers that be. However, the rumor of root poisoning would spread like bush fire across social nets. As there are zillions of root copies in ISPs, corporate nets, and even individual computers, it would not take long to switch to servers feeding a previous correct version (remember Wikileaks). Then Verisign would apologize for an unfortunate snafu in an updating operation, and business would return to usual. A positive effect would be a debunking of the central root myth. There could be as well negative effects on some users and institutions. Who knows ? Then they would realize that they are living under a Damocles sword. If they don't like it, it's up to them to consider practical alternatives. - - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 12:21:59 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:21:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> To clarify again - and since we are talking both administrative procedures and worst case scenarios - I do indeed highlight the hypothetical 'firebreak' potential of the limited US control of the root zone servers; which is of course augmented/reinforced by all the other servers out there. Since USG/DOC/NTIA does not have administrative control of those other servers. And of course that mattering is in the 'highly unlikely' category. As would be the hypothetical case of - some - root zone servers engaging in root zone file disobedience. But then, as I note in other contexts, Fukushima taught nuclear power plant operators - and governments and the public - that whatever they thought was the worst case scenario, things could be much worse than that. So fair enough and it is indeed worth discussing various worst case scenarios and how resilient the net and internet governance mechanisms are to various - worst cases. Which is still a different matter from discussing further internationalization/globalization is needed, which I also subscribe to. Lee ________________________________ From: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:25 AM, parminder > wrote: I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that we are *not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of the root server operators not publishing the authoritative root zone file but the 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in fact do such a thing. Stephanie had spoken of this likelihood and not the 'technical possibility', and, in this regard, expressed disagreement with David. To quote Stephanie's email "unless its operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this as highly unlikely.......... " And since you answered to this statement with an apology of possible misunderstanding, I was confounded, because I thought you have been saying all along that you indeed think that if the US did interfere with the root, the root server operators, other than the one under US gov contract, will in fact 'break free'. (Lee and others supported and built on this argument as the principal element in the discussion about possible misuse of US's control over the root.) I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and therefore the so called current distributed root server architecture *does not* provide us protection against likely improper interference of the US with the root. parminder - - - You are dead right, Parminder. But there are plenty of smart net professionals who know how to twist the architecture. In case of USG interference with the ICANN root zone, predicting the reactions of the 3 non US based root servers is rather uncertain. Their operators may be politically sensitive and under pressure exerted by the powers that be. However, the rumor of root poisoning would spread like bush fire across social nets. As there are zillions of root copies in ISPs, corporate nets, and even individual computers, it would not take long to switch to servers feeding a previous correct version (remember Wikileaks). Then Verisign would apologize for an unfortunate snafu in an updating operation, and business would return to usual. A positive effect would be a debunking of the central root myth. There could be as well negative effects on some users and institutions. Who knows ? Then they would realize that they are living under a Damocles sword. If they don't like it, it's up to them to consider practical alternatives. - - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 13:03:44 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:03:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ICANN Picks New CEO In-Reply-To: References: <002a01cd5091$84562310$8d026930$@mail.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFEF@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> fyi ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:21 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] ICANN Picks New CEO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Charley Kline" > Date: Jun 22, 2012 12:10 PM Subject: ICANN Picks New CEO To: "David Farber" > “Internet group picks little-known executive as CEO” NEW YORK (AP) — A businessman with experience in building consensus will be the next CEO of the Internet agency in charge of contentious policies surrounding Internet addresses, The Associated Press has learned. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is pushing through a major change in the way Web and email addresses are structured and assigned, plans to announce Fadi Chehade's appointment in Prague on Friday. He will replace former U.S. cybersecurity chief Rod Beckstrom as chief executive. In selecting Chehade, ICANN went with someone who isn't well known and isn't well versed in the organization's core tasks — keeping the Internet address system running smoothly. Chehade does, however, have a knack for diplomacy. In the early days of e-commerce, he persuaded leading tech companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard to collaborate on a system called RosettaNet for exchanging data, even as they competed for customers. ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker said those achievements outweighed the drawbacks. In an exclusive interview with the AP ahead of the announcement, Chehade, 50, said his work at RosettaNet prepared him for the new role. "The thrill and the satisfaction of bringing people around some common understanding is tremendous," Chehade said. "I have a personal and deep love of bringing consensus." http://news.yahoo.com/internet-group-picks-little-known-executive-ceo-130234437--finance.html Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 22 15:54:11 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:54:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 22 16:26:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:26:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 19:54:11 on Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >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? In very similar circumstances, the visas for Hyderabad were not issued from a commercial outsource in the UK (who handle the tourist and similar visas), but direct from the Consulate, free of charge. They were supposed to have received a letter explaining this from their Foreign Ministry, and the Indian hosts were very good about producing copies of that generic letter (although rather late in the day). I suspect this is something which should be brought up at the next open consultation (if there is one) or via the MAG/Secretariat. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 16:28:29 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:28:29 +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: Yaaa!!! Thank you very much, Milton, for your question))) For some years I tried to link together visa issues and IG processes. Reasons: 1. To participate in IGF, it is enough to register on its website. But sometimes it is not enough to receive visa for the host-country of IGF. 2. What about transparency and accountability of visa processes? Do you know WHO PERSONALLY decides your visa destiny? 3. What is the role of business? Do you know exact numbers of revenues of visa business? Do you know who receives these revenues? 4. What is the role of NGO? How can NGOs influence on visa problems? And once again, you are welcome in Ukraine (at least from the part of NGO) Best, Oksana 2012/6/22 Milton L Mueller : > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jun 22 16:53:43 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (rguerra at privaterra.org) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 20:53:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1918259279-1340398426-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1303430091-@b1.c5.bise6.blackberry> Milton, There have been multiple assurances by the Azeri foreign ministry at the consultations in Geneva that visas would be handled in an expedited way, perhaps even upon arrival. I suggest we get guidance from the igf secretariat if this been arranged. Robert Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:54:11 To: Governance (governance at lists.igcaucus.org) Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Milton L Mueller Subject: [governance] Azeri visas 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 22 16:58:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:58:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 Message-ID: Dear All, I am wondering who all are going to be in Prague for the ICANN 44? Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jun 22 17:03:59 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (rguerra at privaterra.org) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:03:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <964226730-1340399042-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-6787860-@b1.c5.bise6.blackberry> Sala, I will be "attending" the meeting virtually. Robert Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:58:22 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 Dear All, I am wondering who all are going to be in Prague for the ICANN 44? Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Fri Jun 22 17:05:47 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 01:05:47 +0400 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 22 18:10:54 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:10:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Azeri visas In-Reply-To: <1918259279-1340398426-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1303430091-@b1.c5.bise6.blackberry> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E1EB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1918259279-1340398426-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1303430091-@b1.c5.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD218E385@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > There have been multiple assurances by the Azeri foreign ministry at the > consultations in Geneva that visas would be handled in an expedited way, > perhaps even upon arrival. > > I suggest we get guidance from the igf secretariat if this been > arranged. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, I suggest we do, and soon! We cannot deal with "perhaps's" when it comes to arrival at a foreign country without a visa. I am trying to run an academic symposium the day before and I can't even tell the people whose papers we have accepted how to get into the country. With Oksana (hi!) egging me on, I will continue complaining.... Do you know that the IGF website does not even contain a link to the official IGF2012 site run by the host? http://igf2012.com/ (or if it does I did not find it after an hour of staring at its drab colors.) 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. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 22 20:02:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 02:02:18 +0200 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: Thanks Milton, This is indeed a concern particularly for thöse seeking to send their passports offshore. At least a confirmation that visa will be issued on arrival should give some comfort and now really is the time to start lodging quicklÿ. Please keep us posted. Sala On 6/23/12, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> There have been multiple assurances by the Azeri foreign ministry at the >> consultations in Geneva that visas would be handled in an expedited way, >> perhaps even upon arrival. >> >> I suggest we get guidance from the igf secretariat if this been >> arranged. > > [Milton L Mueller] Yes, I suggest we do, and soon! We cannot deal with > "perhaps's" when it comes to arrival at a foreign country without a visa. > I am trying to run an academic symposium the day before and I can't even > tell the people whose papers we have accepted how to get into the country. > > With Oksana (hi!) egging me on, I will continue complaining.... > Do you know that the IGF website does not even contain a link to the > official IGF2012 site run by the host? http://igf2012.com/ > (or if it does I did not find it after an hour of staring at its drab > colors.) > 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. > > > -- 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 toml at communisphere.com Fri Jun 22 21:17:44 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:17:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> References: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> IGC Members, We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. Sunday night is the deadline. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus OK, the _S_ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, *and not one name has been submitted!* The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an Appeals Team. See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the Appeals Team members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt Best, Tom Lowenhaupt *As sent on May 24...* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fellow Members of the IGF, With "Governance" a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter , the role of the Appeals Team is: "Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal." "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed." "An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team." Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. This letter calls for nominees -- self or otherwise -- for a new Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] We look forward to your participation in this important activity. On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 22 21:49:36 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 03:49:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Sat Jun 23 00:35:52 2012 From: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:35:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: <1340426152521370500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> AYE-- Sonigitu Ekpe Project Support Officer[Agriculturist] Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > 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 > > > > http://www.mediaeducation.am > > http://www.safe.am > > http://www.immasin.am > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > __________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 23 00:46:44 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; It is important to know that among all countries the US has the worst record for similar unilateral action effecting foreign lands and nationals. US's Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is the key operative unit in this regard. See /http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ for the role of /OFAC "The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. OFAC acts under Presidential national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments. " To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 ) /We're: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time./ /A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ ./ Google Earth, Google's Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. parminder On Friday 22 June 2012 09:51 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > To clarify again - and since we are talking both administrative > procedures and worst case scenarios - I do indeed highlight the > hypothetical 'firebreak' potential of the limited US control of the > root zone servers; which is of course augmented/reinforced by all the > other servers out there. Since USG/DOC/NTIA does not have > administrative control of those other servers. > > And of course that mattering is in the 'highly unlikely' category. > As would be the hypothetical case of - some - root zone servers > engaging in root zone file disobedience. > > But then, as I note in other contexts, Fukushima taught nuclear power > plant operators - and governments and the public - that whatever they > thought was the worst case scenario, things could be much worse than > that. So fair enough and it is indeed worth discussing various worst > case scenarios and how resilient the net and internet governance > mechanisms are to various - worst cases. > > Which is still a different matter from discussing further > internationalization/globalization is needed, which I also subscribe to. > > Lee > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] on behalf of Louis Pouzin > (well) [pouzin at well.com] > *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2012 12:06 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > *Subject:* [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:25 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that > we are *not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of > the root server operators not publishing the authoritative root > zone file but the 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in > fact do such a thing. Stephanie had spoken of this likelihood and > not the 'technical possibility', and, in this regard, expressed > disagreement with David. To quote Stephanie's email "unless its > operator decides to break free; unlike David Conrad, I regard this > as highly unlikely.......... " > > And since you answered to this statement with an apology of > possible misunderstanding, I was confounded, because I thought you > have been saying all along that you indeed think that if the US > did interfere with the root, the root server operators, other than > the one under US gov contract, will in fact 'break free'. (Lee and > others supported and built on this argument as the principal > element in the discussion about possible misuse of US's control > over the root.) > > I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and > therefore the so called current distributed root server > architecture *does not* provide us protection against likely > improper interference of the US with the root. > > parminder > > - - - > > You are dead right, Parminder. But there are plenty of smart net > professionals who know how to twist the architecture. > > In case of USG interference with the ICANN root zone, predicting the > reactions of the 3 non US based root servers is rather uncertain. > Their operators may be politically sensitive and under pressure > exerted by the powers that be. > > However, the rumor of root poisoning would spread like bush fire > across social nets. As there are zillions of root copies in ISPs, > corporate nets, and even individual computers, it would not take long > to switch to servers feeding a previous correct version (remember > Wikileaks). Then Verisign would apologize for an unfortunate snafu in > an updating operation, and business would return to usual. A positive > effect would be a debunking of the central root myth. > > There could be as well negative effects on some users and > institutions. Who knows ? Then they would realize that they are living > under a Damocles sword. If they don't like it, it's up to them to > consider practical alternatives. > > - - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jun 23 02:38:44 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:38:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+dPm1GJ0RW5PFA4c@internetpolicyagency.com> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes: >I am wondering who all are going to be in Prague for the ICANN 44 I will be there, arriving Saturday evening. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Jun 23 03:44:03 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:44:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: AYE - - - On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Jun 23 04:01:42 2012 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:01:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: Message-ID: AYE Divina Le 23/06/12 09:44, « Louis Pouzin » a écrit : > AYE > - - - > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> 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. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 23 04:27:05 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:27:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] China, the Root & Autonomous Internet References: <26EDD14672A4471E9F98D94D95681718@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 FYI -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 23 04:51:04 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 04:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 05:13:17 2012 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:13:17 +0400 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <1340426152521370500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <1340426152521370500@crossriverstate.gov.ng> Message-ID: AYE On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe < sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng> wrote: > AYE > -- > Sonigitu Ekpe > *Project Support Officer[Agriculturist]* > Cross River Farm Credit Scheme > Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources > 3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 > Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria. > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > *"LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" * > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > 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< > http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/sex-and-censorship-in-azerbaijan/> > >> - Arab Spring at Azerbaijan’s > >> Door > >> - Azerbaijan and Israel: The Enemy of My Enemy Is My > >> Friend< > http://ipsnews.net/2012/02/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 <+++++governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > > http://www.mediaeducation.am > > http://www.safe.am > > http://www.immasin.am > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be > legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you > are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this > message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We > do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it > was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other > information in this message which do not relate to the business of this > firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not > liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information > contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. > -- Media Education Center Yerevan, Armenia www.mediaeducation.am www.safe.am www.immasin.am -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 23 05:38:23 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:38:23 +0100 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: <89AF48EB-2A41-40BD-BC9F-41C07EADD4C2@cafonso.ca> They have disabled the "visa information" link in the menu... :( Sent from a tablet On 22/06/2012, at 23:10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> There have been multiple assurances by the Azeri foreign ministry at the >> consultations in Geneva that visas would be handled in an expedited way, >> perhaps even upon arrival. >> >> I suggest we get guidance from the igf secretariat if this been >> arranged. > > [Milton L Mueller] Yes, I suggest we do, and soon! We cannot deal with "perhaps's" when it comes to arrival at a foreign country without a visa. > I am trying to run an academic symposium the day before and I can't even tell the people whose papers we have accepted how to get into the country. > > With Oksana (hi!) egging me on, I will continue complaining.... > Do you know that the IGF website does not even contain a link to the official IGF2012 site run by the host? http://igf2012.com/ > (or if it does I did not find it after an hour of staring at its drab colors.) > 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. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 23 06:08:35 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:08:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: aye Wolfgang Benedek Von: Koven Ronald > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Koven Ronald > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" >, "ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com" > Cc: "jlfullsack at orange.fr" > Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 23 07:22:59 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:22:59 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] news from Baku References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Aye wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald Gesendet: Sa 23.06.2012 10:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Sat Jun 23 07:36:23 2012 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:36:23 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <17DFBF80-E2AC-4639-B409-A95737122524@christopherwilkinson.eu> aye - cw On 23 Jun 2012, at 13:22, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Aye > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald > Gesendet: Sa 23.06.2012 10:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > ; ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com > Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr > Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku > > > 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 >> 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>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 23 08:16:44 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:16:44 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <5C830900-443D-44E1-9073-82B0705B9834@uni-graz.at> Aye. Matthias C. Kettemann Am 23.06.2012 um 20:24 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Aye > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald > Gesendet: Sa 23.06.2012 10:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com > Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr > Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku > > > 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 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 08:34:16 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:34:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with > regard to ICANN and root server management; > > > To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google > analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full > report see > http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 > ) > > We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. > > A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and > acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see > http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . > > Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are > similarly blocked. > > It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets > Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to > Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar > sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible > calamity. > Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 23 09:28:40 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:28:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with > regard to ICANN and root server management; > > > To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google > analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full > report see > http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 > ) > > We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. > > A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and > acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see > http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . > > Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are > similarly blocked. > > It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets > Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to > Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar > sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible > calamity. > Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gorka.orueta at ehu.es Sat Jun 23 10:04:26 2012 From: gorka.orueta at ehu.es (Gorka Orueta) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:04:26 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <5C830900-443D-44E1-9073-82B0705B9834@uni-graz.at> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCECF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <5C830900-443D-44E1-9073-82B0705B9834@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <7898D179-2C0F-4CEC-B69D-9A521C63152E@ehu.es> Aye. Gorka Orueta Enviado desde mi iPad El 23/06/2012, a las 14:16, "Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at)" escribió: > Aye. > > Matthias C. Kettemann > > > Am 23.06.2012 um 20:24 schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > >> Aye >> >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald >> Gesendet: Sa 23.06.2012 10:51 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com >> Cc: jlfullsack at orange.fr >> Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku >> >> >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 23 10:38:51 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:08:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. > > Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder > which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. > > Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. > > Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. > > But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. > > Now to switch metaphors: ) > > Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). > > Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. > > Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. > > According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. > > There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. > > Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM > To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) > Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Hi, > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: > >> On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with >> regard to ICANN and root server management; >> >> >> To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google >> analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full >> report see >> http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 >> ) >> >> We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. >> >> A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and >> acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see >> http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . >> >> Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are >> similarly blocked. >> >> It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets >> Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to >> Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar >> sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible >> calamity. >> >> > Your understanding is flawed. > > Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or > they don't. > > If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in > routing, and if an order > went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to > route filter based on IP range. > > I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they > are a US 501(c) corp. > > I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, > and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. > > So Cubans would still get the root served to them. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 23 10:59:06 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:29:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. >> >> Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - > > Lee, > > I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being > off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any > particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe > I was confused between the two. > > I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that > applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit > or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of > services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC > orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, > non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". > > So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server > services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new > gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go > around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances > we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So > OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House > deciding. > > (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is > carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term > political and economic interests at > http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf > and > http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf > ) > > As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone > standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when > there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. > Would you like it, if it were with you :) > > If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point > on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not > agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. > > parminder > > >> which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. >> >> Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. >> >> Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. >> >> But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. >> >> Now to switch metaphors: ) >> >> Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). >> >> Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. >> >> Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. >> >> According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. >> >> There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. >> >> Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >> Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) >> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with >>> regard to ICANN and root server management; >>> >>> >>> To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google >>> analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full >>> report see >>> http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 >>> ) >>> >>> We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. >>> >>> A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and >>> acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see >>> http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . >>> >>> Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are >>> similarly blocked. >>> >>> It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets >>> Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to >>> Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar >>> sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible >>> calamity. >>> >>> >> Your understanding is flawed. >> >> Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or >> they don't. >> >> If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in >> routing, and if an order >> went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to >> route filter based on IP range. >> >> I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they >> are a US 501(c) corp. >> >> I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, >> and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. >> >> So Cubans would still get the root served to them. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 10:59:03 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:59:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> References: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Thomas and everyone, I have already submitted some nominations to the NomCom for the appeals team. I think most, probably all of us believe in checks and balances, and the appeals team seems to me to be just that for the IGC. I didn't volunteer because I felt like something of a newcomer, but I realise that I was at the face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad in 2008, so really I've been around for quite a long time. And besides this sounds like a desperate case :-) And there is a good chance that the appeals team will never have to do anything anyway. So I volunteer, and I hope that between today and tomorrow lots of other people will too. Best wishes and good luck to the NomCom Deirdre On 22 June 2012 21:17, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > IGC Members, > > We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not > confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would > like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See > below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. > > Sunday night is the deadline. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), > on behalf of the NomCom members: > > - Asif Kabani > - Hakikur Rahman > - Naveed haq > - Shahid Akbar > - Wilson Abigaba > - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala > Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas > Lowenhaupt To: governance > list IG Caucus > > OK, the *S*ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of > performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of > the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past > the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, *and > not one name has been submitted!* > > The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the > Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than > the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is > approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a > responsibility to have an Appeals Team. > > See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to > the Appeals Team members: > > - Asif Kabani > - Hakikur Rahman > - Naveed haq > - Shahid Akbar > - Wilson Abigaba > - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > *As sent on May 24...* > ------------------------------ > > Fellow Members of the IGF, > > With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our > responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals > Team. As per the IGC Charter , the role > of the Appeals Team is: > > “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main > IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a > decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that > occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the > information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of > the appeal." > > "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal > team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator > recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will > be final on every decision reviewed.” > > “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board > will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as > defined here. Coordinators are not > qualified to be members of the appeals team.” > > Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining > the integrity of the IGC's efforts. > > This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals > Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. > > Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to > submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as > to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its > decision by July 15, 2012. > > To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be > sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom > voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. > [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] > > We look forward to your participation in this important activity. > > On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur > Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) > > > - Asif Kabani > - Hakikur Rahman > - Naveed haq > - Shahid Akbar > - Wilson Abigaba > - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 11:04:03 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:04:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Oops - Sharm el Sheikh, but still quite a long time Deirdre On 23 June 2012 10:59, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Thomas and everyone, > I have already submitted some nominations to the NomCom for the appeals > team. > I think most, probably all of us believe in checks and balances, and the > appeals team seems to me to be just that for the IGC. > I didn't volunteer because I felt like something of a newcomer, but I > realise that I was at the face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad in 2008, so > really I've been around for quite a long time. > And besides this sounds like a desperate case :-) > And there is a good chance that the appeals team will never have to do > anything anyway. > So I volunteer, and I hope that between today and tomorrow lots of other > people will too. > Best wishes and good luck to the NomCom > Deirdre > > On 22 June 2012 21:17, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > >> IGC Members, >> >> We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not >> confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would >> like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See >> below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. >> >> Sunday night is the deadline. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), >> on behalf of the NomCom members: >> >> - Asif Kabani >> - Hakikur Rahman >> - Naveed haq >> - Shahid Akbar >> - Wilson Abigaba >> - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen >> Sala Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas >> Lowenhaupt To: governance >> list IG Caucus >> >> OK, the *S*ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of >> performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of >> the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past >> the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, >> *and not one name has been submitted!* >> >> The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the >> Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than >> the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is >> approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a >> responsibility to have an Appeals Team. >> >> See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to >> the Appeals Team members: >> >> - Asif Kabani >> - Hakikur Rahman >> - Naveed haq >> - Shahid Akbar >> - Wilson Abigaba >> - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> >> *As sent on May 24...* >> ------------------------------ >> >> Fellow Members of the IGF, >> >> With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance >> Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our >> responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals >> Team. As per the IGC Charter , the role >> of the Appeals Team is: >> >> “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main >> IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a >> decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that >> occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the >> information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of >> the appeal." >> >> "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal >> team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator >> recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will >> be final on every decision reviewed.” >> >> “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals >> board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee >> as defined here. Coordinators are not >> qualified to be members of the appeals team.” >> >> Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining >> the integrity of the IGC's efforts. >> >> This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals >> Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. >> >> Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and >> to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision >> as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its >> decision by July 15, 2012. >> >> To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be >> sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom >> voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. >> [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] >> >> We look forward to your participation in this important activity. >> >> On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur >> Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) >> >> >> - Asif Kabani >> - Hakikur Rahman >> - Naveed haq >> - Shahid Akbar >> - Wilson Abigaba >> - with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 23 11:47:04 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:47:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net>,<4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 ) We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 23 12:01:53 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:01:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1340467313.52142.YahooMailClassic@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> AYE --- En date de : Sam 23.6.12, Louis Pouzin (well) a écrit : De: Louis Pouzin (well) Objet: [governance] news from Baku À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Samedi 23 juin 2012, 7h44 AYE - - - On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: 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. -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 23 12:16:40 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:16:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1340468200.31054.YahooMailClassic@web29001.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I as well just wish to indicate my interest and passion to volunteer . This has been my plight all this long i would be glad to be considered . “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 --- On Sat, 23/6/12, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Thomas Lowenhaupt" Date: Saturday, 23 June, 2012, 15:59 Dear Thomas and everyone,I have already submitted some nominations to the NomCom for the appeals team.I think most, probably all of us believe in checks and balances, and the appeals team seems to me to be just that for the IGC. I didn't volunteer because I felt like something of a newcomer, but I realise that I was at the face-to-face meeting in Hyderabad in 2008, so really I've been around for quite a long time.And besides this sounds like a desperate case :-) And there is a good chance that the appeals team will never have to do anything anyway.So I volunteer, and I hope that between today and tomorrow lots of other people will too.Best wishes and good luck to the NomCom Deirdre On 22 June 2012 21:17, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: IGC Members, We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. Sunday night is the deadline. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom members: Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus OK, the Subject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, and not one name has been submitted! The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an Appeals Team. See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the Appeals Team members: Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt Best, Tom Lowenhaupt As sent on May 24... Fellow Members of the IGF, With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter, the role of the Appeals Team is: “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal." "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed.” “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team.” Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] We look forward to your participation in this important activity. On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -----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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 12:35:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:35:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5C5F8F78CDDE42F99F8073EA5DC6FE5E@UserVAIO> The problem, Lee, is that for roughly 95% of the population of the world that joke would not be funny at all and the fact that folks on this list if nowhere else can't see the validity of that fairly simple observation is a source of a lot of the difficulties we are having in moving on with this discussion. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:47 AM To: parminder Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) Lee _____ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pd f and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/interne t_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2 012-06 ) We're: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . Google Earth, Google's Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 23 12:39:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:09:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net>,<4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> On Saturday 23 June 2012 09:17 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the > sledgehammer cannot be directed. > > Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit > everyone's fingers. > > It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' > > And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, > metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, > and others. > > So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about > the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too > heavy for anyone to try to pick up. How does the same sledgehammer suddenly and mysteriously become so easy to wield when the proposed oversight model is international? Just mention with any seriousness a word about an international oversight and you'd hear loud and shrill voices about the sledgehammer just so ready to be used in the most devious ways. My point is simple, there are much better and stronger safeguards with an international oversight, based on international law, than the present US based system. And at least non US people have no reason to like the present system, including for its symbolic significance. > > Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding > hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be > a better thing. That is all the whole discussion is about. If we agree on this, I dont see what we are disagreeing on. > > But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have > to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government > and I'm here to help. ; ) Meanwhile, I mean to keep voicing my opposition to the extant situation, which indeed is as expressed in Reagan's quote, every time anyone seems like defending it, even if apologetically :) > > Lee > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM > *To:* Lee W McKnight > *Cc:* McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Lee > > To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show > is that; > > for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere > with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all > foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already > provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, > affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so > called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere > in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US > to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much > easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. > Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside > the US. > > Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they > did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding > possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US > think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is > trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical > sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater > right to be worried because the US President is not even their > President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? > > parminder > > On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. >>> >>> Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - >> >> Lee, >> >> I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being >> off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any >> particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe >> I was confused between the two. >> >> I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that >> applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit >> or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of >> services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC >> orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, >> non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". >> >> So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server >> services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new >> gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go >> around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances >> we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So >> OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House >> deciding. >> >> (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is >> carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term >> political and economic interests at >> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf >> and >> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf >> ) >> >> As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone >> standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when >> there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. >> Would you like it, if it were with you :) >> >> If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point >> on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in >> not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. >>> >>> Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. >>> >>> Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. >>> >>> But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. >>> >>> Now to switch metaphors: ) >>> >>> Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). >>> >>> Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. >>> >>> Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. >>> >>> According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. >>> >>> There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. >>> >>> Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM >>> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >>> Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with >>>> regard to ICANN and root server management; >>>> >>>> >>>> To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google >>>> analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full >>>> report see >>>> http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 >>>> ) >>>> >>>> We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. >>>> >>>> A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and >>>> acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see >>>> http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . >>>> >>>> Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are >>>> similarly blocked. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets >>>> Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to >>>> Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar >>>> sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible >>>> calamity. >>>> >>>> >>> Your understanding is flawed. >>> >>> Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or >>> they don't. >>> >>> If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in >>> routing, and if an order >>> went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to >>> route filter based on IP range. >>> >>> I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they >>> are a US 501(c) corp. >>> >>> I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, >>> and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. >>> >>> So Cubans would still get the root served to them. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 23 13:18:25 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:18:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net>,<4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3F8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, We're not disagreeing. Yeah there's a sledgehammer in the corner. Folks like David Conrad who may also not be thrilled that it is NTIA closest to that corner - also note that the devil you know, is not quite as scary as - the unknown. So you can oppose it, but until the - next devil, or Reaganesque angel - is known, then the idea of letting anyone else into that room is real real scary. Hence the alarmist and easy headlines, which ITU is belatedly, and cleverly turning into a great PR opportunity for itself, introducing that 'obscure UN agency' to more of the world. ITU folks know they don't want to be anywhere in the room with that hammer. Since even proposing that, would more likely hit them than any intended target. They've been there and done that and got pounded for it already, more than a few times. On the other hand, some lovely charging mechanism changes...and oversight of specs....there might be a mission and an international org meal ticket for another 100 years. But back to opposing the net present...ok...now let's see how Norbert proposes to enhance cooperation getting us from here to there. Presuming there to be be intended to be less scary for us all. Lee ________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:39 PM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? On Saturday 23 June 2012 09:17 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. How does the same sledgehammer suddenly and mysteriously become so easy to wield when the proposed oversight model is international? Just mention with any seriousness a word about an international oversight and you'd hear loud and shrill voices about the sledgehammer just so ready to be used in the most devious ways. My point is simple, there are much better and stronger safeguards with an international oversight, based on international law, than the present US based system. And at least non US people have no reason to like the present system, including for its symbolic significance. Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. That is all the whole discussion is about. If we agree on this, I dont see what we are disagreeing on. But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) Meanwhile, I mean to keep voicing my opposition to the extant situation, which indeed is as expressed in Reagan's quote, every time anyone seems like defending it, even if apologetically :) Lee ________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 ) We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 23 13:20:09 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 18:20:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1340472009.44925.YahooMailClassic@web171305.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> AYE ------------- 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 Web: www.ivission.net Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: www.facebook.com/ivission.internationl NW: www.meetup.com/ivission --- En date de : Sam 23.6.12, Narine Khachatryan a écrit : De: Narine Khachatryan Objet: Re: Re: [governance] news from Baku À: sonigituekpe at crossriverstate.gov.ng Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" Date: Samedi 23 juin 2012, 9h13 AYE On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: AYE--  Sonigitu Ekpe  Project Support Officer[Agriculturist] Cross River Farm Credit Scheme Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources  3 Barracks Road P.M.B. 1119 Calabar - Cross River State, Nigeria.  Mobile +234 805 0232 469    Office + 234 802 751 0179   "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving"  Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: 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 > > http://www.mediaeducation.am > http://www.safe.am > http://www.immasin.am > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 __________________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this communication is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly destroy this message and notify the sender by replying the email in such instances. We do not accept responsibility for any changes made to this message after it was originally sent and any views, opinions, conclusions or other information in this message which do not relate to the business of this firm or are not authorized by us.The Cross River State Government is not liable neither for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. -- Media Education CenterYerevan, Armenia www.mediaeducation.am www.safe.amwww.immasin.am -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Jun 23 14:57:13 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:57:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2137927199.92944.1340477833298.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k18> AYE   JL Fullsack > Message du 23/06/12 12:10 > De : "Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Koven Ronald" , "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" , "ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com" > Copie à : "jlfullsack at orange.fr" > Objet : Re: [governance] news from Baku > > aye Wolfgang Benedek > > Von: Koven Ronald > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Koven Ronald > An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" , "ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com" > Cc: "jlfullsack at orange.fr" > Betreff: Re: [governance] news from Baku > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sat Jun 23 16:21:31 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:21:31 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> Message-ID: <004d01cd517d$ca93fb30$5fbbf190$@uol.com.br> Each day a bad news about transparency around the world... De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Narine Khachatryan Enviada em: sexta-feira, 22 de junho de 2012 18:06 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK Assunto: Re: [governance] news from Baku 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 workby 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sat Jun 23 17:56:40 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:26:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] news from Baku In-Reply-To: <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> References: <1678810364.101875.1340272380836.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h13> <8CF1F3474EBAB1C-1EA8-17822@webmail-m022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Aye > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 23 22:22:01 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:22:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 23 June 2012 09:17 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Parminder, > > What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer > cannot be directed. Right, they could try, but they would fail. > > Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's > fingers. > > It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' > > And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, > metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and > others. > > So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the > sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for > anyone to try to pick up. > While true, that's not the point I have been making over the last 7 years. My point is while the current setup is sub-optimal from a political/policy perspective the USG is just not going to let go of this particular function, it's political suicide for any Administration. I don't think there actually needs to be an external oversight body, but that belief is made moot by the knowledge that "giving up the Internet" is just not going to fly with the US electorate. To be clear to Riaz and Parminder and others, there are zero John Boltonish/US exceptionalists on this list, however some of us are just more practical than others. I would appreciate if some could accept this and stop misconstruing the positions of others. Of course, YMMV and y'all can tilt at whatever windmill you may choose, but don't count on my support. -- 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 Sun Jun 24 05:53:53 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:53:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Transparency over oversight function In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 23, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. Lee - I am in general agreement, but will note that there is an underlying requirement for transparency in the governance and operation of these functions in order for that (inadvisability to meddle in the core functions) to actually hold true. DoC/NTIA has done a credible job in keeping the oversight role to the minimum necessary and relatively free of US political concerns. While we all hope this wil be the case, there would be no way of knowing if otherwise unless the actual interactions between NTIA and ICANN are open and transparent. As long as this is the case, any cross-USG interactions (e.g. the postulated OFAC issue) would be apparent to the community and allow for appropriate response. To this end, ARIN's written comments on the IANA Notice of Inquiry specifically called out the transparency and accountability requirement: "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. " I believe that Parminder has a valid point that we should not be complacent with respect to the ability of the USG to unilaterally act in these matters, while it is hoped that appropriate structure of any oversight role will provide the transparency that the community needs to facilitate accountability where needed. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jun 24 08:55:05 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:55:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Transparency over oversight function In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF545@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> John, Fair enough, and point taken. As ARIN and Parminder/ITforChange share the same view on the need for "open, transparent and globally accountable" oversight of IANA functions, perhaps we are making progress towards consensus. Lee ________________________________ From: John Curran [jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 5:53 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; McTim; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] Transparency over oversight function On Jun 23, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. Lee - I am in general agreement, but will note that there is an underlying requirement for transparency in the governance and operation of these functions in order for that (inadvisability to meddle in the core functions) to actually hold true. DoC/NTIA has done a credible job in keeping the oversight role to the minimum necessary and relatively free of US political concerns. While we all hope this wil be the case, there would be no way of knowing if otherwise unless the actual interactions between NTIA and ICANN are open and transparent. As long as this is the case, any cross-USG interactions (e.g. the postulated OFAC issue) would be apparent to the community and allow for appropriate response. To this end, ARIN's written comments on the IANA Notice of Inquiry specifically called out the transparency and accountability requirement: "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. " I believe that Parminder has a valid point that we should not be complacent with respect to the ability of the USG to unilaterally act in these matters, while it is hoped that appropriate structure of any oversight role will provide the transparency that the community needs to facilitate accountability where needed. 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 16:46:32 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:46:32 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE3F64A.5010601@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F64A.5010601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? > I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it. I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist? I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight mechanism" should do. You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do. 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 17:09:04 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:09:04 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <873A17AE-7162-4E24-AB84-4BB2FFB576B0@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:25 PM, parminder wrote: >> Actually, what I have argued ("again and again") is that there is no unilateral action in root zone management. I stand by that argument and challenge you to provide _fact based_ counter-argument, not hypotheticals. > I think we had cleared this level long back in our argument that we are *not* any longer discussing the 'technical possibility' of the root server operators not publishing the authoritative root zone file but the 'socio-political' likelihood that they would in fact do such a thing. I am, of course, speaking of "socio-poltical likelihoods" -- it is obvious that technically, the root server operators can do whatever they like. Presumably, you would agree that the "socio-political" ramifications to the USG of inappropriately modifying the root zone would be severe -- the USG would be undermining everything ICANN was established (by them) to do. I would argue that the "socio-political" ramifications to the root server operators of blindly re-publishing that inappropriately modified root zone would also be severe, albeit in the opposite direction -- the root server operators would be knowingly publishing bad (with respect to the global Internet) data which would greatly impact the trust the Internet technical community and others places in them. Given the negative repercussions your hypothetical actions would cause, I maintain that it is far more likely that the root server operators would refuse to publish known bad data that it would be for the USG to force its creation. However, I gather that your mind is made on this particular topic so continued debate is likely unproductive. > Stephanie BTW, that's Stephane, not Stephanie :-). > I repeat, I dont think such 'breaking free' is likely and therefore the so called current distributed root server architecture *does not* provide us protection against likely improper interference of the US with the root. IIRC, at least two root server operators (one US-based, one Europe-based) have stated in essence that they believe they provide the last line of defense to ICANN (and by implication, the USG) running amok so your argument about whether they would "break free" would be with them. 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 17:55:45 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:55:45 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Jun 22, 2012, at 6:46 PM, parminder wrote: > It is important to know that among all countries the US has the worst record for similar unilateral action effecting foreign lands and nationals. "Among all countries the US has the worst record"? [citation needed] > US's Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is the key operative unit in this regard. In a previous message, I stated (in a part which you appear to have ignored): "Yet in that "unending" list, I challenge you to provide even a _single_ example in which the US government has used its role in root management to do _anything_ that didn't abide by existing root management policies and practices." > It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. And yet, despite those sanctions being in place long before the DNS (or the Internet existed), root zone changes for Cuba have not gone unprocessed. Nor have root zone changes for North Korea. Or Sudan. Or Libya. Or Iran. Or Syria. Or Iraq. Etc. The root zone has been maintained by US-based entities since the creation of the DNS. During that period, there have been myriad opportunities for OFAC (or its predecessors) to intercede, including periods when the US was at war, had imposed sanctions at various levels of severity, had refused diplomatic relations, etc., with countries that have requested changes to the root zone. I reiterate my challenge above: provide even a _single_ example. Objective observers might conclude that either OFAC-based sanctions do not apply to processes involving ccTLDs as they are treated as national sovereign resources or alternatively, OFAC is involved and the USG might see strategic value in not enforcing OFAC-based sanctions to those resources. In either case, please explain how the operational arm of the "international oversight mechanism" would not be subject to the laws or whims of its hosting country. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 18:08:04 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:08:04 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net>,<4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5F144.5090102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <25CD2AD1-5EE3-44F0-9D80-49BDDF3CC01F@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Jun 23, 2012, at 6:39 AM, parminder wrote: > My point is simple, there are much better and stronger safeguards with an international oversight, based on international law, than the present US based system. Not disagreeing as I am quite ignorant on international law, however can you list these 'much better and stronger safeguards'? > And at least non US people have no reason to like the present system, including for its symbolic significance. My impression (which may be wrong) is that no one on this list, not even I, actually likes the current system. The problem is the lack of a viable alternative or a transition mechanism to get to that alternative should it exist. 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 pouzin at well.com Sun Jun 24 18:45:53 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:45:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, > > [snip] > > And yet, despite those sanctions being in place long before the DNS (or > the Internet existed), root zone changes for Cuba have not gone > unprocessed. Nor have root zone changes for North Korea. Or Sudan. Or > Libya. Or Iran. Or Syria. Or Iraq. Etc. > > Here is a case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.iq http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/l-irak-recupere-son-nom-de-domaine-iq-39251115.htm&ei=MJLnT4GlJsLJtAaBoPWzAQ&usg=AFQjCNE0TtX4nCSYC27pefzhQD-smYtflg English translation: « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » 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 drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 19:01:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:01:40 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Louis, While this was before my time at ICANN, my understanding is that the USG (or its policies) had no role in the delays relating to redelegation. Rather, there is a long standing (and quite controversial) policy within ICANN/IANA that goes back to RFC 1591 that dictates that any change of control of a TLD must be demonstrated to be in the best interests of "the Internet community" (not necessarily the government) of the country/territory. In the .IQ case, ICANN (not the USG) was unable to determine whether the change was in the country's "Internet community's" best interest. In such cases, the policy dictates that the best course of action is to not make any changes until the situation stabilized in Iraq enough to establish the wishes of "the Internet community". This policy is one of the most problematic for IANA staff to implement for obvious reasons (e.g., what does "the Internet community" mean and how do you measure its best interests), but it does not reflect USG intercession on the redelegation. Regards, -drc On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > English translation: > > « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq > > by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 > Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, > > - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). > > The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." > > Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. > > The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » > > Louis > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jun 24 19:17:22 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:17:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <5C5F8F78CDDE42F99F8073EA5DC6FE5E@UserVAIO> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<5C5F8F78CDDE42F99F8073EA5DC6FE5E@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F0662@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Michael, Sorry for my dated and obscure reference, which is in fact quite apropos. I elaborate in case, as you suggest, my attempt at keeping this discourse on a lighter tone, was possibly misconstrued. Reagan's position and the hypothetical views of the 95% you allude to, towards the USG, is essentially the same. Meaning that neither actually believes the US government is - here to help. While we have been discussing exactly how the root zone file oversight mechanism, which we might agree helps 2 billion Internet users globally, since without it there would be no inter-net, is managed by the USG. And while it may be hard to believe, it has in fact as David points out, never been mismanaged for domestic political purposes. Now, do you get it? Meaning, Reagan was very critical of the US government, even as he led it. And others may be very critical of the US government, even as one corner of it (NTIA) performs a function for all Internet users worldwide, at no charge except to us US taxpayers. So, of course my joking reference was - just because - folks around the world would not believe, just as Reagan did not, that government was of much help. Obviously, as we discussed on another variation on this thread, going towards a 'globally open, transparent, and accountable' mechanism is preferrable, we agree. All joking aside, the mechanics of these processes must be well-understood - before one proposes, specifically, how to change them, which is what my various interventions on this thread have been attempting to help folks not natively of the technical community. If my attempt at making some points in a briefer and lighter way brought offense, well, sorry. Lee ________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; 'parminder' Cc: 'McTim'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)' Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? The problem, Lee, is that for roughly 95% of the population of the world that joke would not be funny at all and the fact that folks on this list if nowhere else can't see the validity of that fairly simple observation is a source of a lot of the difficulties we are having in moving on with this discussion. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:47 AM To: parminder Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 ) We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Jun 24 19:29:05 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:29:05 -1000 Subject: [governance] Transparency over oversight function In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <9CE24257-D461-4411-9E02-99F23493410F@virtualized.org> John, On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:53 PM, John Curran wrote: > DoC/NTIA has done a credible job in keeping the oversight role to the minimum > necessary and relatively free of US political concerns. While we all hope this > wil be the case, there would be no way of knowing if otherwise unless the actual > interactions between NTIA and ICANN are open and transparent. Interesting that you leave out Verisign, the folks who actually implement changes. However, in the specific case of root management, I'm curious: given the output from the root management process are (by definition) public, the overall processes by which the requests are handled is public, and even graphs describing the processing queues over time are published, what additional openness/transparency do you feel would be helpful/necessary? > I believe that Parminder has a valid point that we should not be complacent with > respect to the ability of the USG to unilaterally act in these matters, I believe this is a source of my confusion over this entire "oversight" discussion. In my view, oversight ensures good actions are taken and bad actions are prevented. Unilateral action on the part of the USG as discussed in this thread would not be oversight. In the context of root management, the USG (currently and historically) has acted in an oversight role with respect to the actions of ICANN (by authorizing root zone changes) and Verisign (through contractual obligations) and as far as I know, has done so in line with existing policies and processes (for good or ill). The actions Parminder and others have been expressing concern about and you appear to allude to would be those that could be taken by the government of the hosting country for the operational arm of the "international oversight mechanism", regardless of the country. Given national sovereignty, it isn't clear to me how an "international oversight mechanism" would be able to prevent a government (any government, not just the US) from imposing its will on the operational body within its borders that is implementing root zone modification. However, isn't this distinct from the question of "oversight"? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 24 19:53:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:53:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F0662@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <009671752EBD48DDBB7ECD2358637F75@UserVAIO> Lee, I got the "joke" and reference very well... My point though was that the 95% of the world that don't adhere to the Red, White and Blue would also get it; but wouldn't, given the rather sorry recent history of the US, necessarily think it was a joke. Rather, in fact, many/most would likely see it as a rather unpleasant and ever-present reality or possible reality. "Hi I'm from the US government and I'm here to "help" (in Iraq, in Guyana, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Laos, in Salvador, in Brazil (with the generals), in Argentina (with the Generals), in Chile (with Pinochet), in the Congo etc.etc.etc.) is not a "joke" to a lot people"... So when folks say "we're with the USG trust us" as certain folks on this list seem to be saying, a lot of other folks think of that other famous quote of Reagan's--"trust, but verify... Best, Mike : Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:17 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder' Cc: 'McTim'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)' Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Michael, Sorry for my dated and obscure reference, which is in fact quite apropos. I elaborate in case, as you suggest, my attempt at keeping this discourse on a lighter tone, was possibly misconstrued. Reagan's position and the hypothetical views of the 95% you allude to, towards the USG, is essentially the same. Meaning that neither actually believes the US government is - here to help. While we have been discussing exactly how the root zone file oversight mechanism, which we might agree helps 2 billion Internet users globally, since without it there would be no inter-net, is managed by the USG. And while it may be hard to believe, it has in fact as David points out, never been mismanaged for domestic political purposes. Now, do you get it? Meaning, Reagan was very critical of the US government, even as he led it. And others may be very critical of the US government, even as one corner of it (NTIA) performs a function for all Internet users worldwide, at no charge except to us US taxpayers. So, of course my joking reference was - just because - folks around the world would not believe, just as Reagan did not, that government was of much help. Obviously, as we discussed on another variation on this thread, going towards a 'globally open, transparent, and accountable' mechanism is preferrable, we agree. All joking aside, the mechanics of these processes must be well-understood - before one proposes, specifically, how to change them, which is what my various interventions on this thread have been attempting to help folks not natively of the technical community. If my attempt at making some points in a briefer and lighter way brought offense, well, sorry. Lee _____ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; 'parminder' Cc: 'McTim'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)' Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? The problem, Lee, is that for roughly 95% of the population of the world that joke would not be funny at all and the fact that folks on this list if nowhere else can't see the validity of that fairly simple observation is a source of a lot of the difficulties we are having in moving on with this discussion. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:47 AM To: parminder Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Parminder, What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) Lee _____ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM To: Lee W McKnight Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Lee To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? parminder On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - Lee, I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pd f and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/interne t_freedom.pdf ) As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. parminder which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. Now to switch metaphors: ) Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi, On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with regard to ICANN and root server management; To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full report see http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2 012-06 ) We're: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . Google Earth, Google's Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are similarly blocked. It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible calamity. Your understanding is flawed. Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or they don't. If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in routing, and if an order went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to route filter based on IP range. I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they are a US 501(c) corp. I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. So Cubans would still get the root served to them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Jun 24 03:50:09 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 09:50:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FE5EC8F.4010302@itforchange.net> References: <4FE5EC8F.4010302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE6C6B1.30308@ITforChange.net> I submit my nomination to the NomCom for the appeals team. regards Guru Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC /www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 How ICTs can transform teacher education - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kgSW_o9z8&feature=youtu.be On 22 June 2012 21:17, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: > > IGC Members, > > We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but > we've not confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So > the NomCom would like to make a final request that some more of > you to step forward. See below for details on the duties of the > Appeals Team. > > Sunday night is the deadline. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), > on behalf of the NomCom members: > > * Asif Kabani > > * Hakikur Rahman > * Naveed haq > > * Shahid Akbar > > * Wilson Abigaba > > * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > To: governance list IG Caucus > > > > > OK, the _S_ubject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality > of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on > behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to > note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for > the IGC's Appeals Team, *and not one name has been submitted!* > > The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the > Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of > nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the > deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, > see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an > Appeals Team. > > See the duties and qualification details below, and send > nominations to the Appeals Team members: > > * Asif Kabani > * Hakikur Rahman > * Naveed haq > * Shahid Akbar > > * Wilson Abigaba > * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > *As sent on May 24...* > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Fellow Members of the IGF, > > With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an > important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the > process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter > , the role of the Appeals Team is: > > “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement > on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of > the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals > team will review any discussions that occurred and will > request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the > information they collect and discussion, they will decide on > the merit of the appeal." > > "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of > the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the > case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The > decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision > reviewed.” > > “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The > appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected > nominating committee as defined here. > Coordinators are not > qualified to be members of the appeals team.” > > Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in > maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. > > This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new > Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June > 24, 2012 GMT. > > Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the > position and to submit background information that will help > the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom > will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. > > To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they > should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com > , and to each NomCom voting > member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this > email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses > provided below.] > > We look forward to your participation in this important activity. > > On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif > Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and > Wilson Abigaba. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) > > * Asif Kabani > > * Hakikur Rahman > * Naveed haq > > * Shahid Akbar > > * Wilson Abigaba > > * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itfc_logo.png Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Jun 25 03:16:29 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:16:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] "ICANN & Internet Governance Landscape," Mon 13:30 CET Message-ID: <140E2925-16CB-4842-B338-5A3ADC7EEF74@uzh.ch> #ICANN44 "ICANN & Internet Governance Landscape," Mon 13:30 CET, remote participation, will discuss #IGF, Enhanced Cooperation, #WCIT http://prague44.icann.org/node/31639 *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 04:33:14 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:33:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hello all, I wonder about the relevance of the Chinese proposal for the autonomy of the Internet! Given the changes in strength of online crime or more of the core cybrecriminalité in cyberspace, this proposal of autonomy of the internet would it not justified? There is reason to believe and even to believe that there are states that are also cyber criminals! SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/6/17 michael gurstein > If I am reading this below correctly... > > One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to > "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... > Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a > fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any > "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such > fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support > for/weaken opposition to such developments. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio > Pietrosanti (naif) > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM > To: Liberation Technologies > Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > Hi all, > > i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should > make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet > governance issues. > > DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 > > This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College > propose. > > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the > world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a > "central control". > > From Introduction on Root DNS: > " But its central control > method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up > with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, > owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in > Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the > technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS > architecture." > > From AIP DNS Architecture: > "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous > Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize > possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the > foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." > > So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative > internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent > island in the world. > > -naif > _______________________________________________ > liberationtech mailing list > liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu > > Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click > above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily > digest?" > > You will need the user name and password you receive from the list > moderator > in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. > > Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 25 05:24:03 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:24:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <009671752EBD48DDBB7ECD2358637F75@UserVAIO> References: <009671752EBD48DDBB7ECD2358637F75@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <49167D43-D8B0-4D2A-A3F2-07D579298A32@cafonso.ca> In the USG case, and as a Latin American, I strongly suggest "verify before trusting". Sent from a tablet On 25/06/2012, at 01:53, michael gurstein wrote: > Lee, > > I got the "joke" and reference very well... > > My point though was that the 95% of the world that don't adhere to the Red, White and Blue would also get it; but wouldn't, given the rather sorry recent history of the US, necessarily think it was a joke. > > Rather, in fact, many/most would likely see it as a rather unpleasant and ever-present reality or possible reality. "Hi I'm from the US government and I'm here to "help" (in Iraq, in Guyana, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, in Laos, in Salvador, in Brazil (with the generals), in Argentina (with the Generals), in Chile (with Pinochet), in the Congo etc.etc.etc.) is not a "joke" to a lot people"... > > So when folks say "we're with the USG trust us" as certain folks on this list seem to be saying, a lot of other folks think of that other famous quote of Reagan's--"trust, but verify... > > Best, > > Mike > > : Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:17 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder' > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)' > Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Michael, > > Sorry for my dated and obscure reference, which is in fact quite apropos. > > I elaborate in case, as you suggest, my attempt at keeping this discourse on a lighter tone, was possibly misconstrued. > > Reagan's position and the hypothetical views of the 95% you allude to, towards the USG, is essentially the same. Meaning that neither actually believes the US government is - here to help. > > While we have been discussing exactly how the root zone file oversight mechanism, which we might agree helps 2 billion Internet users globally, since without it there would be no inter-net, is managed by the USG. And while it may be hard to believe, it has in fact as David points out, never been mismanaged for domestic political purposes. > > Now, do you get it? Meaning, Reagan was very critical of the US government, even as he led it. And others may be very critical of the US government, even as one corner of it (NTIA) performs a function for all Internet users worldwide, at no charge except to us US taxpayers. So, of course my joking reference was - just because - folks around the world would not believe, just as Reagan did not, that government was of much help. > > Obviously, as we discussed on another variation on this thread, going towards a 'globally open, transparent, and accountable' mechanism is preferrable, we agree. > > All joking aside, the mechanics of these processes must be well-understood - before one proposes, specifically, how to change them, which is what my various interventions on this thread have been attempting to help folks not natively of the technical community. > > If my attempt at making some points in a briefer and lighter way brought offense, well, sorry. > > Lee > > > From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; 'parminder' > Cc: 'McTim'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)' > Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > The problem, Lee, is that for roughly 95% of the population of the world that joke would not be funny at all and the fact that folks on this list if nowhere else can't see the validity of that fairly simple observation is a source of a lot of the difficulties we are having in moving on with this discussion. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:47 AM > To: parminder > Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) > Subject: RE: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Parminder, > > What I believe McTim and I, and David, are saying, is that the sledgehammer cannot be directed. > > Messing with the root zone file in any way - always - would hit everyone's fingers. > > It would be the opposite of 'maintaining stability of the net.' > > And, OFAC would have that explained to them in whatever way works, metaphorically or not, should they ever attempt to go there, by NTIA, and others. > > So yeah, again, totally understand why others might be nervous about the sledgehammer lying in the corner, we're all just saying - it's too heavy for anyone to try to pick up. > > Which again, is not to say that some global circle of friends holding hands stopping each other from ever going to that corner would not be a better thing. > > But until Norbert's hypothetical ECTF issues its RFA's - you'll have to rely on President Reagan's old joke - I'm from the (US) government and I'm here to help. ; ) > > Lee > From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 10:59 AM > To: Lee W McKnight > Cc: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) > Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Lee > > To make things clear from my side, what I am trying to do is to show is that; > > for the US government to act, if it does choose to act, to interfere with the root in a manner that *only* affects some or even all foreigners (and not US citizens) is so much easier, and already provided in the law, than to do a similar thing within the US, affecting US citizens. The latter may require something like the so called Internet Kill Switch Bill, for US gov to be able to interfere in such a basic way with the Internet within the US. However, for US to do so for select countries it chooses to target, it is so much easier.That is why I brought in the OFAC regime into our discussion. Dont you see this situation as problematic. It is, to those outside the US. > > Now, when the US citizens have a right to raise such a outcry as they did against giving sweeping powers to the US President regarding possibly even switching off the Internet, why do our friends in the US think that those outside the US are simply being over-sensitive is trying to see that the US gov does not hold a similar metaphorical sledgehammer over their 'foreign' heads. They have a much greater right to be worried because the US President is not even their President. Dont you think so? Why these differential standards? > > parminder > > On Saturday 23 June 2012 08:08 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday 23 June 2012 06:58 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> Parminder, >>> >>> Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. That's all that the root zone file signifies. >>> >>> Being on the inter-net does not guarantee access to a particular - service or application - >> >> Lee, >> >> I am superclear about it. I surely know root zone file in about being off or on the Internet, and quite different from availability of any particular service over the Internet. Not sure, what made you believe I was confused between the two. >> >> I only said, and I believe so, that the same US's OFAC regime that applies to google services *can* very easily apply to any non profit or even government agency providing root server and DNS kind of services to the sanctioned countries. To quote their website, OFAC orders apply to ' "All U.S. persons and entities (companies, non-profit groups, government agencies, etc.) wherever located". >> >> So you are wrong to claim that if OFAC wanted to hit the root server services (or even domain name services like accepting cctld or new gtld applications form the sanctioned countries) it would have to go around persuading NTIA etc. In any case, in the kind of circumstances we are talking about, all wings of the administration act as one. So OFAC and NTIA would no doubt talk, but it will be the White House deciding. >> >> (BTW, taking Iran's example, do see the manner how any OFAC diktat is carefully and elaborately worded to suit US's short and long term political and economic interests at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.pdf and http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/internet_freedom.pdf ) >> >> As for the sledgehammer metaphor you employ, no one likes someone standing with a sledgehammer over his/ their head, especially when there is a way to get the holder of the sledgehammer to put it down. Would you like it, if it were with you :) >> >> If one is not going to use the sledgehammer ever, there is no point on insisting on holding it over other people's head, as US does in not agreeing to internationalise 'oversight' of CIR management. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> which can be unavailable for any number of reasons. Most commonly, not paying for it. Even for free services can be unavailable, for example because the provider is unable or is not bothering to extract ad revenue from particular geographies, for various reasons. So they don't want to bear the costs for the load on their own servers coming from areas they can't make $$ from. Typically though, most folks on the Internet will accept and send traffic anywhere, since the cost per - whatever - is so low. >>> >>> Then there's cases of national-level filtering and blocking eg China's great firewall. >>> >>> Or service provider-level filtering which could be in place for business reasons, or due to - national-level law. >>> >>> But as McTim notes, all of those cases are separate matters entirely from the operation of the root-servers that are distributed on-off switches - metaphorically speaking. >>> >>> Now to switch metaphors: ) >>> >>> Think really really heavy sledgehammer and a bee (from OFAC view). >>> >>> Even if the US has been in conflict with Cuba of one sort or another for the past...50 years +.....you wouldn't think to try to swat the bee with the sledgehammer, since you would realize that it is far more likely that you would drop the sledgehammer on your own foot, than hit the bee. >>> >>> Not to mention, OFAC has no permission or administrative authorization to pick up that sledgehammer. >>> >>> According to US law and administrative practice, they would have to ask NTIA to please help them go after the US root zone operators; and/or would have to ask other governments to drop the sledgehammer on their own root-zone operators, since the bee's somewhere else. >>> >>> There's sequences of improbable events which lead to worst-case scenarios, which can and do happen, and then there's - firebreaks, administrative procedures, and various levels of service above and beyond - being on the net. >>> >>> Nonetheless, as I have previously noted, this is not to suggest I favor the USG still having its hands so close to - ICANN/IANA/Verisign's - expert finetuning fingers tweaking the rootzone file. Since yeah we can always imagine a sledgehammer being dropped, on our own hands/net. >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 8:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >>> Cc: Lee W McKnight; Louis Pouzin (well) >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> On other issue of, whether US gov can or could take unilateral steps with >>>> regard to ICANN and root server management; >>>> >>>> >>>> To take an example. if anyone tries to access the services of google >>>> analytics from Cuba she is greeted by the following message (for the full >>>> report see >>>> http://www.webpronews.com/google-blocks-cuba-from-gaining-analytics-access-2012-06 >>>> ) >>>> >>>> We’re: unable to grant you access to Google Analytics at this time. >>>> >>>> A connection Has Been Established Between your current IP address and >>>> acountry sanctioned by the U.S. government. For more information, see >>>> http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/ . >>>> >>>> Google Earth, Google’s Desktop Search tool and Google Code Search are >>>> similarly blocked. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that a simple order from the Office of Foreign Assets >>>> Control to ICANN/ Verisign could put provision of root server services to >>>> Cuba and its nationals ( and those of some other countries) under similar >>>> sanctions. That is how close we are to what many think is an impossible >>>> calamity. >>>> >>>> >>> Your understanding is flawed. >>> >>> Serving the root is binary, a DNS root-operator either serves it or >>> they don't. >>> >>> If you are talking about filtering routes, well that is done in >>> routing, and if an order >>> went to ICANN/Verisign, they have no way to command the other root-ops to >>> route filter based on IP range. >>> >>> I doubt $current_employer (F) would filter as above, even though they >>> are a US 501(c) corp. >>> >>> I am sure $former_employer (K) would not as they are not a US corp, >>> and have said as much (IIRC) during WSIS. >>> >>> So Cubans would still get the root served to them. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 25 05:32:23 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:32:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. Sent from a tablet On 25/06/2012, at 01:01, David Conrad wrote: > Louis, > > While this was before my time at ICANN, my understanding is that the USG (or its policies) had no role in the delays relating to redelegation. Rather, there is a long standing (and quite controversial) policy within ICANN/IANA that goes back to RFC 1591 that dictates that any change of control of a TLD must be demonstrated to be in the best interests of "the Internet community" (not necessarily the government) of the country/territory. In the .IQ case, ICANN (not the USG) was unable to determine whether the change was in the country's "Internet community's" best interest. In such cases, the policy dictates that the best course of action is to not make any changes until the situation stabilized in Iraq enough to establish the wishes of "the Internet community". > > This policy is one of the most problematic for IANA staff to implement for obvious reasons (e.g., what does "the Internet community" mean and how do you measure its best interests), but it does not reflect USG intercession on the redelegation. > > Regards, > -drc > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> English translation: >> >> « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq >> >> by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 >> Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, >> >> - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). >> >> The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." >> >> Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. >> >> The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » >> >> Louis >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 25 07:16:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:46:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 June 2012 03:02 PM, c.a. wrote: > David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. > In the circumstances, David, I dont know how you , and others, have been insisting that such kind of a thing has never ever happened, and therefore we need no protection against. This is the worst possible transgression, and abuse, of the oversight authority by the US. What greater damning example do you need. parminder > Sent from a tablet > > On 25/06/2012, at 01:01, David Conrad wrote: > > >> Louis, >> >> While this was before my time at ICANN, my understanding is that the USG (or its policies) had no role in the delays relating to redelegation. Rather, there is a long standing (and quite controversial) policy within ICANN/IANA that goes back to RFC 1591 that dictates that any change of control of a TLD must be demonstrated to be in the best interests of "the Internet community" (not necessarily the government) of the country/territory. In the .IQ case, ICANN (not the USG) was unable to determine whether the change was in the country's "Internet community's" best interest. In such cases, the policy dictates that the best course of action is to not make any changes until the situation stabilized in Iraq enough to establish the wishes of "the Internet community". >> >> This policy is one of the most problematic for IANA staff to implement for obvious reasons (e.g., what does "the Internet community" mean and how do you measure its best interests), but it does not reflect USG intercession on the redelegation. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >>> English translation: >>> >>> « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq >>> >>> by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 >>> Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, >>> >>> - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). >>> >>> The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." >>> >>> Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. >>> >>> The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » >>> >>> Louis >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Mon Jun 25 07:56:15 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:56:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Transparency over oversight function In-Reply-To: <9CE24257-D461-4411-9E02-99F23493410F@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9CE24257-D461-4411-9E02-99F23493410F@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <9D162966-EBB0-42DC-A369-3EF0F39372C0@arin.net> On Jun 25, 2012, at 1:29 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > Interesting that you leave out Verisign, the folks who actually implement changes. > > However, in the specific case of root management, I'm curious: given the output from the root management process are (by definition) public, the overall processes by which the requests are handled is public, and even graphs describing the processing queues over time are published, what additional openness/transparency do you feel would be helpful/necessary? David - Are communications with respect to the IANA contract (i.e. ICANN <-> NTIA) public? For example, if NTIA were to not approve of a change, the result of that may or may not be noticed, but would it be clear that it did not occur because of USG decision? I honestly do not know, and ask to better understand the potential risk here. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 08:31:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:31:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Google: government requests to censor content "alarming" Message-ID: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/google-government-requests-censor-content-alarming- 122247515--sector.html Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/749s8qc BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Google has received more than 1,000 requests from authorities to take down content from its search results or YouTube video in the last six months of 2011, the company said on Monday, denouncing what it said was an alarming trend. ... "It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect - Western democracies not typically associated with censorship," said Chou. (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/more-transparency-into-gov ernment.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 ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 25 08:39:05 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:39:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Baudouin, The issue arising  here is that of ownership in the cyber space. I want to believe that in the nearest future, the hypothesis of partitioning the global web space into national web spaces might come to the scene. A scenario where internet users will need a kind of virtual visa to gain access to a web space out of their national territory. To anticipate this kind of an event, we should take the chinese very serious and dig deep into the initiative. May be its an polite method of contesting the legitimacy of the Internet governing body? ---------------- permit me to ask the following question: - Which is more important, the content in the internet or the technology? - If you create your own technology, is there any guarantee that you will not censor content? (PIPA/SOPA) - If we create virtual borders in our cyber space, what will become of the information society?+ - Are we going to jeopardize the outcomes of Tunis Summit ? These are just a few questions for us to ponder on, especially or Chinese friends and colleagues. ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep. Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 Web: www.ivission.net Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: www.facebook.com/ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission NW: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : Baudouin SCHOMBE À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc : lists at infosecurity.ch Envoyé le : Lundi 25 juin 2012 10h33 Objet : Re: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? hello all, I wonder about the relevance of the Chinese proposal for the autonomy of the Internet! Given the changes in strength of online crime or more of the core cybrecriminalité in cyberspace, this proposal of autonomy of the internet would it not justified? There is reason to believe and even to believe that there are states that are also cyber criminals! SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com skype                 : b.schombe blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net   2012/6/17 michael gurstein If I am reading this below correctly... > >One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to >"internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... >Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a >fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any >"flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such >fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support >for/weaken opposition to such developments. > >M > >-----Original Message----- >From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu >[mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio >Pietrosanti (naif) >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM >To: Liberation Technologies >Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > >Hi all, > >i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should >make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet >governance issues. > >DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 > >This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College >propose. > >Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the >world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a >"central control". > >From Introduction on Root DNS: >"  But its central control >  method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up >  with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, >  owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in >  Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the >  technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS >  architecture." > >From AIP DNS Architecture: > "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous >  Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize >  possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the >  foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." > >So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative >internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent >island in the world. > >-naif >_______________________________________________ >liberationtech mailing list >liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu > >Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > >https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click >above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily >digest?" > >You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator >in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: >https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > >Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. > >Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 08:41:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:41:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Google: government requests to censor content "alarming" + Message-ID: <65DC6E3695C14DE5B812673A95D215B5@UserVAIO> The Beeb on the same issue... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18479137 -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:recent:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:32 AM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: Google: government requests to censor content "alarming" http://ca.news.yahoo.com/google-government-requests-censor-content-alarming- 122247515--sector.html Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/749s8qc BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Google has received more than 1,000 requests from authorities to take down content from its search results or YouTube video in the last six months of 2011, the company said on Monday, denouncing what it said was an alarming trend. ... "It's alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect - Western democracies not typically associated with censorship," said Chou. (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/more-transparency-into-gov ernment.html) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 25 08:55:12 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F64A.5010601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE85FB0.2010804@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: > >>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >>>> >>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? >>> >> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can re state it. >> > I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist? > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the required authority (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the hosting country, which could be the US (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, procedures etc. (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional representation. Within each region the country from which members would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can look at a possible role for the International court of justice) > I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight mechanism" should do. More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. yes > Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do. > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US would do as well. regards, parminder > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 09:19:11 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:19:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] A Bigger, Meaner Patent War Message-ID: <4FE8654F.6030203@gmail.com> [The patent thickets that cause unpredictability and uncertainty... a policy of the USG along with many many other countries reaps its long term fruits...] *//* */US Perspectives/* A Bigger, Meaner Patent War Available for IP-Watch Subscribers Published on 25 June 2012 @ 1:42 pm EmailShare Print This Post Print This Post By Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch It's been called a patent war, and it's raging over much of the globe. In at least ten countries -- including the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and South Korea -- Apple is locked in ferocious legal battles against Google, Samsung and HTC over whose smartphones and tablets infringe whose patents. There's a lot a stake: Damages could run into billions of dollars. Even worse, the loser could wind up being forbidden to sell its products in various markets. This costly, high-stakes global patent war may seem unprecedented. But according to many experts, that's only partly true. In many ways, this patent war is similar to major patent disputes in the past. And it is likely a foretaste of more patent wars in the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: promotion_small.png Type: image/png Size: 704 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 25 09:21:03 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:21:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca>,<4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, I am not quite sure how I became the defender of the USG or ICANN, but whatever. My recollection of this case is fuzzy - and there was a similar one involving some company that was running the Libya ccTLD by the way, if you want to go there. Before you do though, we should recall that not only fly by night Texas companies ran ccTLDs, in the early days it was not uncommon for tech savvy ex-pats to help their homeland by setting up the ccTLD literally in their bedroom. But yes in some cases private companies set them up since the government in question did not have the tech resources to do so. And continue to do so til this day, now usually wth a contract in place and a revenue split agreed. Anyway, my recollection was that the .iq case had to do with a bankrupt company and ICANN not knowing what to do with the domain. In other cases I am aware of from the same time period, relatively clueless but presumably well-meaning government officers, having belatedly discovered the Internet and ccTLDs, were also trying to just grab the cTLDs from the volunteer/civil society folks who had been managing them for the national Internet community. I won't name names here on the one in particular I am thinking of since I think he eventually reached detente with his own government. In another case I won't name, a trusted member of the Internet technical community, who was doing an exceptionally good job of running the ccTLD, had his own university President, among others, turn on him. My advice then was: get the best lawyer you can find and fight back. Which he did, and that case had a happy ending for my now well-lawyered friend. The point is, in this period there was no 'transparent and objective procedures' for ccTLD redelegation, and there was government on private sector conflict; government on civil society conflict; and civil society on civil society conflict. Arguing that ICANN could have and should have done better is something I completely agree with. But most of those conflicts had little to nothing to do with the IANA-managed root zone file change process we have been talking about up til now. But those community members were all speaking to ICANN asking them to not automatically pull the ccTLD from civil society's, or the private sector's, care. I believe this .iq case came in the midst of those times, when ICANN lacked - objective and transparent procedures - on what to do. Eventually, they figured out that if governments wanted their own national ccTLD, even if someone else had been running it just fine, or poorly, they had to turn it over to the government. (Any true ICANNers can correct me if I'm wrong here.) Anyway, I had similar suspicions to the Iraq case to the handing of the Libya domain which went down sometime back - well before the recent change in regime there - but on closer look it turned out to be similar confusion. I believe. Of course, the last thing I want to do is defend the Bush administration and especially its attacks on Iraq, so if those who really know the details can confirm that in fact the handling of the .iq is part and parcel of that...and not so much the general lack of transparent and objective procedures for handling ccTLD redelegation requests of that era, well then I will eat my virtual words. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 7:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? On Monday 25 June 2012 03:02 PM, c.a. wrote: David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. In the circumstances, David, I dont know how you , and others, have been insisting that such kind of a thing has never ever happened, and therefore we need no protection against. This is the worst possible transgression, and abuse, of the oversight authority by the US. What greater damning example do you need. parminder Sent from a tablet On 25/06/2012, at 01:01, David Conrad wrote: Louis, While this was before my time at ICANN, my understanding is that the USG (or its policies) had no role in the delays relating to redelegation. Rather, there is a long standing (and quite controversial) policy within ICANN/IANA that goes back to RFC 1591 that dictates that any change of control of a TLD must be demonstrated to be in the best interests of "the Internet community" (not necessarily the government) of the country/territory. In the .IQ case, ICANN (not the USG) was unable to determine whether the change was in the country's "Internet community's" best interest. In such cases, the policy dictates that the best course of action is to not make any changes until the situation stabilized in Iraq enough to establish the wishes of "the Internet community". This policy is one of the most problematic for IANA staff to implement for obvious reasons (e.g., what does "the Internet community" mean and how do you measure its best interests), but it does not reflect USG intercession on the redelegation. Regards, -drc On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: English translation: « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » Louis ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 09:03:51 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:03:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Lulzsec: UK men plead guilty to hacking charges Message-ID: <4FE861B7.50705@gmail.com> [After the "cruel and inhuman punishment" metered to free speech advocate Manning... is the US a safe place for a fair prosecution?] 25 June 2012 Last updated at 12:20 GMT Lulzsec: UK men plead guilty to hacking charges Two members of the computer hacking group Lulzsec have pleaded guilty to charges they attacked several high profile websites. Ryan Cleary, 19, and Jake Davis, 18, admitted being part of Lulzsec, an offshoot of the Anonymous collective. They and two others - Ryan Ackroyd, 25, and a 17-year-old boy - deny other similar hacking charges. Lulzsec claimed responsibility for attacking the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) website. The group is also believed to have hacked computers operated by the NHS, News International, Sony, Nintendo, film studio 20th Century Fox, US public broadcaster PBS, and US computer security organisations HBGary, Black & Berg and Infraguard. A trial date has been set for April 2013. Mr Cleary also faces charges in the US, where he stands accused of breaking into a number of websites, including that of the US X Factor, in order to deface them and steal personal details. Arrested in June 2011, Mr Cleary was released on bail but later jailed after breaching his conditions. He had been banned from accessing the internet, but is said to have contacted hacker Hector Xavier Monsegur, known as "Sabu", who had been working as an FBI informant following his own arrest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 25 09:47:53 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:47:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FE86C09.1060209@gmail.com> Parminder Can this issue of the Chinese proposal (whatever its technical merits or demerits - which if taken in the context of the debate of a single root - is neither here nor there) not be seen as a response to recalcitrance of the international community to get a legitimate (and effective) governance system? This along the evolutionary path this issue has followed from the marginalisation of the importance of CIR at WSIS, to IGF-MS and "enhanced" cooperation failing to even raise the issue meaningfully (with lots of cheerleaders in civil and uncivil society "doing what is possible")... In other words the problem IS ICANN, and Internet Civil Society discourse... In this context, de jure USG "control" over the CIR of "net" the moves by the Chinese are hard to dismiss ethically, unless one has some serious tolerance for double standards... or am I getting it wrong again? Riaz Riaz -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Jun 25 11:43:00 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:43:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FE88704.9040002@panamo.eu> Dear Parminder, Thank you for your courage. And thank you also to all the American buddies who participate this list with an open mind and a real worry to find right positions for their country. I believe that sometimes, in a demonstration, a real case may be less strong than a theoretical point. The .iq domain seems not to have been ever cut neither by Icann nor by USG: - according to /The Register/, the first registry operator, Elashi brothers, two Palestinian managing an Internet company in Texas, had obtained the domain from Jon Postel in 1997, in recognition of Bayan Elashi's great skills. But, the domain had never been active when the brothers were jailed. (See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/09/iraq_domain_owner_convicted/ and related articles by Kieren McCarthy). The reason why the five Elashi were -and are still- jailed cannot be usefully discussed here. (More information on civilfreedoms.org.) Even the UN sometimes declare embargo to weaken a country. And even the European Union blacklisted the /Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development/ (involved in Elashi convictions) as a terrorist organization (Council common position 2005/936/CFSP of 21/12/2005). Further story about how .iq was redelagated and hardly began its life has been told in the IANA Report on the Redelegation of the .IQ Top-Level Domain dated 05/08/2005. So, even with a multilateral oversight on IANA function instead of kind Mr Strickling'eyes nowadays, a ccTLD could be redelegated by force! BUT, the unilateral oversight should not be accepted for very political reasons, and only for them, without needing anything else. Because, with the important role of Internet now, it puts countries in the hands of only one, that CANNOT guarantee, of course, that it will always be governed by wise men... And the argument assuming that all the partners of the distributed chain under the root could disobey a fool order, it is simply nullified by history and by social psychology studies. Please see the US researcher Stanley Milgram's experiment about obedience to authority. And imagine the same case with huge propaganda after a shock like Pearl Harbour or 9/11... I'll come back here later about the Chinese proposal. Best regards, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix Présidente Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 25/06/12 13:16, parminder a écrit : > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 03:02 PM, c.a. wrote: >> David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. >> > > In the circumstances, David, I dont know how you , and others, have > been insisting that such kind of a thing has never ever happened, and > therefore we need no protection against. > > This is the worst possible transgression, and abuse, of the oversight > authority by the US. What greater damning example do you need. parminder > >> Sent from a tablet >> >> On 25/06/2012, at 01:01, David Conrad wrote: >> >> >>> Louis, >>> >>> While this was before my time at ICANN, my understanding is that the USG (or its policies) had no role in the delays relating to redelegation. Rather, there is a long standing (and quite controversial) policy within ICANN/IANA that goes back to RFC 1591 that dictates that any change of control of a TLD must be demonstrated to be in the best interests of "the Internet community" (not necessarily the government) of the country/territory. In the .IQ case, ICANN (not the USG) was unable to determine whether the change was in the country's "Internet community's" best interest. In such cases, the policy dictates that the best course of action is to not make any changes until the situation stabilized in Iraq enough to establish the wishes of "the Internet community". >>> >>> This policy is one of the most problematic for IANA staff to implement for obvious reasons (e.g., what does "the Internet community" mean and how do you measure its best interests), but it does not reflect USG intercession on the redelegation. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> >>>> English translation: >>>> >>>> « Iraq gets back its domain name .Iq >>>> >>>> by the editor, ZDNet France. Published Monday, August 8, 2005 >>>> Tags: Internet, Politics, Domain Names, >>>> >>>> - ICANN has just returned to Iraq the management of its domain name - the ".Iq". The international body responsible for regulating the domain name system (DNS) has entrusted the task to the National Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (NCMC). >>>> >>>> The [Irak] government organization claimed .Iq for more than a year, but Icann believed the country too unstable to do it. It validated the request at a recent meeting, saying "acting in the best interest of local and global Internet communities." >>>> >>>> Since 1997 .Iq belonged to the Texas company InfoCom, which was responsible for its management until 2002. Date on which ICANN suspended the domain name, after several company executives were suspected of having links with Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by U.S. authorities. >>>> >>>> The management change will allow the Iraqi government to standardize its e-mail and web addresses. » >>>> >>>> Louis >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Jun 25 12:55:16 2012 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> References: <4FD59060.9060406@communisphere.com> <4FE51938.2060004@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <1340643316.43262.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi Everyone. I would like to submit my name to NomCom for the Appeals Team. I have been with WSIS and IGF since its early days and have attended several IGF's including  Geneva ,Tunisia, Hyderabad and Vilnius. I have been part of this forum for many years and am actively following the discussions. Best regards Shaila Rao Mistry   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:17 PM Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team IGC Members, We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. Sunday night is the deadline. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), >on behalf of the NomCom members: > > * Asif Kabani > * Hakikur Rahman > * Naveed haq > * Shahid Akbar > * Wilson Abigaba > * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus OK, the Subject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, and not one name has been submitted! The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an Appeals Team. See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the Appeals Team members: * Asif Kabani * Hakikur Rahman * Naveed haq * Shahid Akbar * Wilson Abigaba * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt Best, Tom Lowenhaupt As sent on May 24... ________________________________ Fellow Members of the IGF, With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter, the role of the Appeals Team is: “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal." > >"Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed.” > >“An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team.” Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. > >Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] > We look forward to your participation in this important activity. On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) > > > * Asif Kabani > * Hakikur Rahman > * Naveed haq > * Shahid Akbar > * Wilson Abigaba > * with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 25 13:16:39 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:16:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <1340643316.43262.YahooMailNeo@web161901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1340644599.43351.YahooMailClassic@web29009.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I  as well wish to re submit my name to NomCom for the Appeals Team. I was once appointed to nomcom some time back and if its considered this time it would be great . “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 --- On Mon, 25/6/12, shaila mistry wrote: From: shaila mistry Subject: Re: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" Date: Monday, 25 June, 2012, 17:55 Hi Everyone. I would like to submit my name to NomCom for the Appeals Team.I have been with WSIS and IGF since its early days and have attended several IGF's including  Geneva ,Tunisia, Hyderabad and Vilnius.I have been part of this forum for many years and am actively following the discussions. Best regards Shaila Rao Mistry  The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !..................... the renaissance of composure ! From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:17 PM Subject: [governance] 48 hours to deadline to nominate/volunteer for Appeals Team IGC Members, We have several nominees/volunteers for the Appeals Team, but we've not confirmed that all the nominees are willing to serve. So the NomCom would like to make a final request that some more of you to step forward. See below for details on the duties of the Appeals Team. Sunday night is the deadline. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair), on behalf of the NomCom members: Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Emperor Izumi and Queen Sala Reach Accord With ITU Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:29:52 -0400 From: Thomas Lowenhaupt To: governance list IG Caucus OK, the Subject: is a too obvious joke considering the quality of performance by our hard working and esteemed co-chairs. But on behalf of the Appeals Team nominating Committee, I'm compelled to note: we're past the half-way mark for submitting nominations for the IGC's Appeals Team, and not one name has been submitted! The important and engaging discussions on topics relating to the Internet's future provide a better excuses for the paucity of nominees than the traditional "the dog ate my paper." But the deadline for nominations is approaching - next Sunday, June 24, see details below - and we have a responsibility to have an Appeals Team. See the duties and qualification details below, and send nominations to the Appeals Team members: Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt Best, Tom Lowenhaupt As sent on May 24... Fellow Members of the IGF, With “Governance” a key word in our Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, the selection of an Appeals Team is an important part of our responsibilities. This email begins the process of creating a new Appeals Team. As per the IGC Charter, the role of the Appeals Team is: “Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal." "Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or more votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed.” “An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined here. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team.” Thus the members of the Appeals Team serve a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the IGC's efforts. This letter calls for nominees – self or otherwise – for a new Appeals Team. Nominations shall be received by midnight, June 24, 2012 GMT. Nominees will be contacted to verify their interest in the position and to submit background information that will help the NomCom make a decision as to its membership. The NomCom will review the nominees and render its decision by July 15, 2012. To assure full and timely distribution of nominations, they should be sent to the NomCom Chair via TomL at communisphere.com, and to each NomCom voting member using the Cc. addresses in the heading area of this email. [NOTE: The Nominating Committee member email addresses provided below.] We look forward to your participation in this important activity. On behalf of the Appeals Team Nominating Committee: Asif Kabani, Hakikur Rahman, Naveed-ul-Haq, Shahid Uddin Akbar, and Wilson Abigaba. Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt (non-voting chair) Asif Kabani Hakikur Rahman Naveed haq Shahid Akbar Wilson Abigaba with a copy to the non-voting chair Thomas Lowenhaupt ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 13:59:11 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 07:59:11 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: C.a., On Jun 24, 2012, at 11:32 PM, c.a. wrote: > David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. An interesting view given the thrust of this discussion to date. To be clear, IANA is required to follow policies dictated by RFC 1591/ICP-1 and the "oversight" role of the USG in root management is to ensure ICANN/IANA staff has indeed followed those policies. Out of curiosity, why do you believe ICANN (or the USG) "suspended" the .iq domain? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN so I may be misinformed) was that the folks Postel delegated the domain to didn't do anything with it and got in trouble for violating US law when living in the US. When a redel request came in, it was not possible for IANA staff to establish the wishes of the Internet community in Iraq as required by RFC 1591/ICP-1 and as a result, were required by those documented policies to not make any changes. Do you have different information about the .IQ case? 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 14:19:15 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 08:19:15 -1000 Subject: [governance] Transparency over oversight function In-Reply-To: <9D162966-EBB0-42DC-A369-3EF0F39372C0@arin.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE5D4FB.8090203@itforchange.net> <4FE5D9BA.7060605@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF3CE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <9CE24257-D461-4411-9E02-99F23493410F@virtualized.org> <9D162966-EBB0-42DC-A369-3EF0F39372C0@arin.net> Message-ID: <786A2C23-D844-4281-AC03-3ADD844959C3@virtualized.org> John, On Jun 25, 2012, at 1:56 AM, John Curran wrote: > Are communications with respect to the IANA contract (i.e. ICANN <-> NTIA) public? For example, if NTIA were to not approve of a change, the result of that may or may not be noticed, but would it be clear that it did not occur > because of USG decision? With the proviso that things might (probably) have changed since I left IANA, the day-to-day communications are not. However, I believe timing information about each step of the process is provided to the requester upon completion so where hold ups occur can be clearly determined and those unhappy with the delays can raise a ruckus targeted at the correct party. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 15:02:53 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:02:53 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE85FB0.2010804@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F64A.5010601@itforchange.net> <4FE85FB0.2010804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F104C0-8491-49E2-B527-D3513C21FEEE@virtualized.org> On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:55 AM, parminder wrote: >> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist? > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and principles, [...] So, I take it your answer to my question is "no" :-). > Those approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. Actually, I suspect folks from 'the technical side' don't actually care _how_ a solution is arrived at, rather they care that the arrived at solution (a) solves the identified problem(s) and (b) can actually be implemented. Without a concrete proposal (regardless of how it is arrived at), it is difficult to establish either (a) or (b), so I suspect 'the technical side' will have a bit of reluctance going along. > More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. Unfortunately, I'm still unclear what you believe this to be. For example, you seem to believe the "oversight" body can arbitrarily muck with the contents of the root zone. Can you be specific as to what you believe the role of the "international oversight mechanism" actually is? > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. Since I'm ignorant of international law, just to clarify: you're saying that a "host country agreement" will prevent a sovereign nation that is hosting the operational arm of the "international oversight mechanism" from unilaterally acting in what it considers its best interests? That is, that a country would be prevented from choosing to ignore treaty obligations? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 15:23:34 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:23:34 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Jun 25, 2012, at 1:16 AM, parminder wrote: > In the circumstances, David, I dont know how you , and others, have been insisting that such kind of a thing has never ever happened, and therefore we need no protection against. In this context, the "thing" we (or at least I) have been discussing is whether or not the US government has exceeded its oversight role with respect to root zone management. In the .IQ case, the redelegation request never even got to the US government -- it was held up in the (documented) IANA process prior to a request for authorization. Or are you suggesting that the oversight body should intercede to violate documented consensus policies and processes? On what grounds? > This is the worst possible transgression, and abuse, of the oversight authority by the US. Sorry, I don't follow. How could this possibly be a transgression/abuse of oversight authority if the request never got to the point in which oversight would be applied? > What greater damning example do you need. Well, an actual example in which the US government exceeded its oversight role with respect to root management might help. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 15:44:01 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 09:44:01 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca>,<4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4007F962-48B6-4B2D-8F4C-35165C6FD17E@virtualized.org> Lee, On Jun 25, 2012, at 3:21 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I believe this .iq case came in the midst of those times, when ICANN lacked - objective and transparent procedures - on what to do. Eventually, they figured out that if governments wanted their own national ccTLD, even if someone else had been running it just fine, or poorly, they had to turn it over to the government. > > (Any true ICANNers can correct me if I'm wrong here.) While I'm not sure if I'm a "true ICANNer", I believe there remains a bit of ambiguity about what to do in a case where a government makes a request that is against the wishes of "the Internet community" of that country. Back when I was at IANA, these were the nightmare cases for IANA staff as we were obliged to abide by RFC 1591/ICP-1 that views the government as "a" (not "the") stakeholder relating to ccTLD matters while at the same time, we were obliged to abide by the "GAC Principles" that essentially says "when a government says jump, ask how high". The historical (and RFC 1591 documented) policy in these cases was for IANA to refuse to do the requested action until the parties could reach consensus. I'm sure folks can imagine governments' response to IANA's request to the government and various parties involved to "work it out amongst yourselves and come back when you've figured it out." I'm not sure of the current state of play regarding these conflicting requirements but I believe there is an effort within the ccNSO to attempt to clarify these policies. However, the point is that the .IQ case (and all other cases I'm aware of) got stuck in documented IANA processes due to requirements to abide by documented consensus policies, _not_ as a result of the US government exceeding its oversight role. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Jun 25 16:53:07 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:53:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> Le 25/06/12 19:59, David Conrad a écrit : > Out of curiosity, why do you believe ICANN (or the USG) "suspended" the .iq domain? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN so I may be misinformed) was that the folks Postel delegated the domain to didn't do anything with it and got in trouble for violating US law when living in the US. Here we are!Elashi "/violated the US law/". As if US law was the world law! But Elashi brosscould not have been convicted in a lot of "clean" countries such as UK or Australia. And even in the States, CS rights organizations fight for Elashi freedom! That's exactly why the root must not be ruled by only one country. Best, @+, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix Présidente Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 25 17:27:27 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:27:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3FA52AC9-6633-4C1A-83EF-8C4BEACC2DA1@cafonso.ca> David, Icann cannot legislate. It was a political decision from the USG, no matter what RFC you bring to the discussion. What do you mean "[they] did not do anything with it"?? It is news to me that Icann has the authority to withdraw a cctld because of its activity level. Sent from a tablet On 25/06/2012, at 19:59, David Conrad wrote: > C.a., > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 11:32 PM, c.a. wrote: >> David, the only relevant "RFC" in the .iq case was a determination from the USG for Icann to suspend the domain. > > An interesting view given the thrust of this discussion to date. To be clear, IANA is required to follow policies dictated by RFC 1591/ICP-1 and the "oversight" role of the USG in root management is to ensure ICANN/IANA staff has indeed followed those policies. > > Out of curiosity, why do you believe ICANN (or the USG) "suspended" the .iq domain? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN so I may be misinformed) was that the folks Postel delegated the domain to didn't do anything with it and got in trouble for violating US law when living in the US. When a redel request came in, it was not possible for IANA staff to establish the wishes of the Internet community in Iraq as required by RFC 1591/ICP-1 and as a result, were required by those documented policies to not make any changes. Do you have different information about the .IQ case? > > Regards, > -drc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 25 17:30:24 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:30:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The "IANA process" goes through NTIA, David. NTIA=USG. What is your role in Icann, BTW? Sent from a tablet On 25/06/2012, at 21:23, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 1:16 AM, parminder wrote: >> In the circumstances, David, I dont know how you , and others, have been insisting that such kind of a thing has never ever happened, and therefore we need no protection against. > > In this context, the "thing" we (or at least I) have been discussing is whether or not the US government has exceeded its oversight role with respect to root zone management. In the .IQ case, the redelegation request never even got to the US government -- it was held up in the (documented) IANA process prior to a request for authorization. > > Or are you suggesting that the oversight body should intercede to violate documented consensus policies and processes? On what grounds? > >> This is the worst possible transgression, and abuse, of the oversight authority by the US. > > Sorry, I don't follow. How could this possibly be a transgression/abuse of oversight authority if the request never got to the point in which oversight would be applied? > >> What greater damning example do you need. > > Well, an actual example in which the US government exceeded its oversight role with respect to root management might help. > > Regards, > -drc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 25 17:40:42 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:40:42 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> Dominique, On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Le 25/06/12 19:59, David Conrad a écrit : >> Out of curiosity, why do you believe ICANN (or the USG) "suspended" the .iq domain? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN so I may be misinformed) was that the folks Postel delegated the domain to didn't do anything with it and got in trouble for violating US law when living in the US. > Here we are! Elashi "violated the US law". As if US law was the world law! They were living in the US (Texas, as I understand it). I'm assuming they did not have diplomatic immunity. Are you saying non-diplomats living in the US are not subject to US law because they created a commercial company that happened to convince Jon Postel in 1997 that they could provide ccTLD services for Iraq? > But Elashi bross could not have been convicted in a lot of "clean" countries such as UK or Australia. Not knowing the laws of either the UK or Australia, I can't comment. > And even in the States, CS rights organizations fight for Elashi freedom! If you say so. Not being a lawyer, knowing the details of the case, or knowing CS rights organizations or the justification they're using to argue for the Elashi brothers, I can't comment. > That's exactly why the root must not be ruled by only one country. I'm sorry, not following the logic here. While I might agree that "oversight" (for some value of that variable) should not be performed by a single country, I don't see how the .IQ/Elashi brothers case argues for it. But I guess that's just me. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Jun 25 17:58:13 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:58:13 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <3FA52AC9-6633-4C1A-83EF-8C4BEACC2DA1@cafonso.ca> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <3FA52AC9-6633-4C1A-83EF-8C4BEACC2DA1@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:27 AM, c.a. wrote: > David, Icann cannot legislate. True. Didn't suggest otherwise. > It was a political decision from the USG, no matter what RFC you bring to the discussion. Sorry, what was a political decision? The RFC I mentioned defines the policies by which IANA implements redelegations which was applicable in the redelegation of .IQ. If you're saying arresting and convicting the Elashi brothers was a political decision, I can't comment as I don't know the details of the case. > What do you mean "[they] did not do anything with it"?? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN) was that the .IQ domain was essentially non-functional. Do you have evidence otherwise? > It is news to me that Icann has the authority to withdraw a cctld because of its activity level. As I suspect you're aware, ICANN doesn't have the authority to withdraw a ccTLD period. ICANN, through the IANA functions contract, only vets requests made by TLD administrators (existing or prospective) to make changes to the root zone relating to those TLDs. However, the lack of activity within a domain does provide supporting (not definitive) evidence that a redelegation is warranted should someone request that redelegation. 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 pimienta at funredes.org Mon Jun 25 18:04:49 2012 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:04:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4007F962-48B6-4B2D-8F4C-35165C6FD17E@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4007F962-48B6-4B2D-8F4C-35165C6FD17E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <201206252205.q5PM5IK1013998@es.funredes.org> >The historical (and RFC 1591 documented) policy in these cases was >for IANA to refuse to do the requested action until the parties >could reach consensus. Well, this is not what IANA did in the case of the Haitian ccTLD (.ht) and this wrong decision caused Haiti to remain without working national domain for many years (from 1997 to after 2004, date of the redelegation...) and surprised many experts. Details and references in http://funredes.org/english/carpeta.php3/temaid/17 (1997 page! Internet archeology... :-) ). Redelegation by ICANN: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html But this is another and old story... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 25 18:18:49 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:18:49 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jun 25, 2012, at 11:30 AM, c.a. wrote: > The "IANA process" goes through NTIA, David. NTIA=USG. Indeed. As I tried to explain in an earlier note, IANA receives requests from TLD administrators, verifies the requests are valid and conforms to documented policies then forwards those requests on to NTIA for authorization. NTIA verifies ICANN followed the documented policies in processing the request. Once NTIA authorizes those requests, they are forwarded to Verisign for implementation. You and Parminder apparently believe the .IQ case is a smoking gun of the US government inappropriately "abusing" its oversight role with regards to root management. My understanding of the .IQ case (which may be wrong) is that the redelegation request for .IQ never even got to the US government for them to abuse their oversight role, rather the request got bogged down in the IANA processes due to difficulties establishing the will of the Internet community in Iraq. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. > What is your role in Icann, BTW? I'm a member of ICANN's Security & Stability Advisory Council. Perhaps more relevantly to this discussion, I was IANA general manager from Nov 2005 to Jul 2010 (give or take a few months here and there for various reasons) as well as ICANN's VP of IT/Research for about half that period towards the end of my time there. My (slightly outdated) bio can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/biographies-15jun12-en.htm. Hope that helps. 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 ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 25 18:33:20 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:33:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <201206252205.q5PM5IK1013998@es.funredes.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4007F962-48B6-4B2D-8F4C-35165C6FD17E@virtualized.org> <201206252205.q5PM5IK1013998@es.funredes.org> Message-ID: <4FE8E730.9040304@cafonso.ca> Yet another case... :( []s frats --c.a. On 06/25/2012 07:04 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > >> The historical (and RFC 1591 documented) policy in these cases was for >> IANA to refuse to do the requested action until the parties could >> reach consensus. > Well, this is not what IANA did in the case of the Haitian ccTLD (.ht) > and this wrong decision caused Haiti to remain without working national > domain for many years (from 1997 to after 2004, date of the > redelegation...) and surprised many experts. > Details and references in > http://funredes.org/english/carpeta.php3/temaid/17 (1997 page! Internet > archeology... :-) ). > Redelegation by ICANN: > http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > But this is another and old story... > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 25 18:46:18 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:46:18 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <201206252205.q5PM5IK1013998@es.funredes.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE84899.8040501@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0F07FE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4007F962-48B6-4B2D-8F4C-35165C6FD17E@virtualized.org> <201206252205.q5PM5IK1013998@es.funredes.org> Message-ID: <406B0ED7-115D-46CE-B3DB-CDF75ECDC1CE@virtualized.org> Daniel, On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> The historical (and RFC 1591 documented) policy in these cases was for IANA to refuse to do the requested action until the parties could reach consensus. > Well, this is not what IANA did in the case of the Haitian ccTLD (.ht) and this wrong decision caused Haiti to remain without working national domain for many years (from 1997 to after 2004, date of the redelegation...) and surprised many experts. Thanks for the pointer to this case -- I was unaware of it. Makes for very interesting reading (well, at least for someone interested in IANA stuff). I would agree that IANA didn't follow its own documented policies back in 1997. This may be one of the reasons dealing with the cases where the government and "the Internet community" disagree became so challenging. However, with respect to the topic at hand, I'd note that back then, there really wasn't any oversight -- no one (USG or otherwise) was directly in the loop to ensure policies were followed. It was basically Jon who made the call, although he did consult with some folks (no idea who) in complicated cases (the IDNB mentioned in RFC 1591). I suspect part of the rationale for the Byzantine nature of root zone management processes today is a result of ancient history like this. 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 pouzin at well.com Mon Jun 25 22:28:25 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:28:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Parminder, > > Just to be superclear about this, you are either on the inter-net, or off. > That's all that the root zone file signifies. > Oh really. That's a new definition of inter-net, as opposed to internet. It is just the same as saying that you are either on the tele-phone system, or off, depending on being listed in the tele-phone directory. It would mean that unlisted numbers could not make or receive phone calls !! That's news. The internet is a set of interconnected autonomous nets carrying datagrams from sending IP addresses to receiving IP addresses. At this level domain names and root zones are totally irrelevant. In addition, there are applications using the previous facility. They may or may not use domain names instead of IP addresses. If they do, they call some conversion tool for replacing domain names with IP addresses. One of those tools is an application called DNS. To convert domain names to IP addresses a DNS queries a database containing domain names registered by users. This data base is composed of a set of directories. Each directory has a name (TLD), e.g. com, net, org, de, pl, uk, pirates, wa, etc. Several organizations operate a DNS. Each one may use all or a subset of TLDs. The TLD set used by a DNS is called a root, (i.e. a table of contents). ICANN, a self proclaimed monopoly, uses its own root, which is restricted to TLDs registered with ICANN. Other organizations may use roots containing different TLD subsets, or a root containing all TLDs (open root). e.g. the following domain names cannot be reached with the ICANN root: *gov.wa, sachsen.pirates, правителство.бг, wikipedia.ku, tibetan-france.ti, gov.malta, grep.geek, uyghurensemble.uu * What about NO DNS at all ? Unless your mailer or ISP does not conform to RFC 2822, you can mail to: *pouzin@[137.194.2.14]* Being "off the inter-net" makes you free from ICANN, Verisign et al. Cheers, 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 26 00:01:29 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:01:29 +1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE85FB0.2010804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in root zone management (among other things). I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and balances in current procedures to not need such a role. Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of the internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any functions. If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded agreement with GAC. If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with are likely to be far worse. Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but instead do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement of ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in the way of sensible internet governance. The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only unneccessary but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of them. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 To: , David Conrad Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > Parminder, > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example >>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? >>> >>> >> >> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can >> re state it. >> >> > > > I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, > more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty > goals or possible models. Does such exist? > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the required authority (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the hosting country, which could be the US (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, procedures etc. (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional representation. Within each region the country from which members would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can look at a possible role for the International court of justice) > > I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight > mechanism" should do. More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > > You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the > root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be > overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. yes > > Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me how > the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that country's > government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG will do. > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US would do as well. regards, parminder > > > Regards, > -drc > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Jun 26 01:28:07 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:28:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63fb9ee4-0843-4614-b4a4-b5bd2485c019@email.android.com> Hi, Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction? avri Ian Peter wrote: >Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in >root >zone management (among other things). > >I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight >function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and >balances in >current procedures to not need such a role. > >Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of >the >internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any >functions. > >If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded >agreement >with GAC. > >If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with >are >likely to be far worse. > >Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and >individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but >instead >do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! > >This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current >appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement >of >ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another >function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in >the >way of sensible internet governance. > >The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only >unneccessary >but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of >them. > >Ian Peter > > > >From: parminder >Reply-To: , parminder > >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 >To: , David Conrad >Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >"Autonomous Internet" ? > > >On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> Parminder, >> >> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight >mechanism? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete >example >>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at >one? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you >want I can >>> re state it. >>> >>> >> >> >> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) >proposal or, >> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline >of lofty >> goals or possible models. Does such exist? >> > >In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way >forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and >principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those >approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this >general >method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues >respected. >The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are > >(1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and >limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with >the >required authority > >(2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same >statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the >hosting country, which could be the US > >(3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current >distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF >etc) > >(4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned >treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling >with it, >in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab >initio >evolve its own rules, procedures etc. > >(5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional >representation. Within each region the country from which members would >come >will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to >ensure >that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of >the >government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national >process. Some linkages with highest level national technical >institutions >can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) > >(6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained >by >the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed >procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not >consensus. > >(7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can >look >at a possible role for the International court of justice) > >> >> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international >oversight >> mechanism" should do. > >More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. >> >> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents >of the >> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will >be >> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does >today. > >yes >> >> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear >to me how >> the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >country's >> government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG >will do. >> > >No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the >authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a >thing. >Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no >law, >neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an >international >body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based >on >international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an >extraordinary >defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). >It >can be subject to further international processes like those from the >UN and >the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of >the >countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international >court >of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight >body's >hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's >sake >US would do as well. > >regards, parminder > >> >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 26 01:55:16 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:55:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <63fb9ee4-0843-4614-b4a4-b5bd2485c019@email.android.com> Message-ID: > From: Avri > Reply-To: , Avri > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:28:07 +0200 > To: > Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous > Internet" ? > > Hi, > > Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction? > > > avri > Well yes - in terms of some other issues. Interesting to read Paul Levins account of this today - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120625_a_history_of_holding_icann_to_account / 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? Has any alternative proposal to the unsatisfactory status quo ever been proposed by any of these relevant bodies? Ian Peter > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in >> root >> zone management (among other things). >> >> I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight >> function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and >> balances in >> current procedures to not need such a role. >> >> Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of >> the >> internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any >> functions. >> >> If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded >> agreement >> with GAC. >> >> If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with >> are >> likely to be far worse. >> >> Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and >> individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but >> instead >> do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! >> >> This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current >> appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement >> of >> ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another >> function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in >> the >> way of sensible internet governance. >> >> The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only >> unneccessary >> but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of >> them. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> >> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 >> To: , David Conrad >> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >> "Autonomous Internet" ? >> >> >> On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: >>> >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight >> mechanism? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete >> example >>>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at >> one? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you >> want I can >>>> re state it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) >> proposal or, >>> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline >> of lofty >>> goals or possible models. Does such exist? >>> >> >> In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way >> forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and >> principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those >> approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this >> general >> method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues >> respected. >> The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are >> >> (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and >> limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with >> the >> required authority >> >> (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same >> statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the >> hosting country, which could be the US >> >> (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current >> distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF >> etc) >> >> (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned >> treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling >> with it, >> in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab >> initio >> evolve its own rules, procedures etc. >> >> (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional >> representation. Within each region the country from which members would >> come >> will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to >> ensure >> that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of >> the >> government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national >> process. Some linkages with highest level national technical >> institutions >> can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) >> >> (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained >> by >> the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed >> procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not >> consensus. >> >> (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can >> look >> at a possible role for the International court of justice) >> >>> >>> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international >> oversight >>> mechanism" should do. >> >> More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. >>> >>> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents >> of the >>> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will >> be >>> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does >> today. >> >> yes >>> >>> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear >> to me how >>> the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >> country's >>> government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG >> will do. >>> >> >> No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the >> authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a >> thing. >> Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no >> law, >> neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an >> international >> body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based >> on >> international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an >> extraordinary >> defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). >> It >> can be subject to further international processes like those from the >> UN and >> the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of >> the >> countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international >> court >> of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight >> body's >> hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's >> sake >> US would do as well. >> >> regards, parminder >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 26 06:13:22 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:13:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FE98B42.5090005@cafonso.ca> Grande Ian, your questions and proposal are quite relevant. However, we have to remind ourselves that the AoC was an agreement of behavior and procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA), while the GAC has (or should have) an advisory role like any other advisory committee, which makes your proposal quite hard for the USG to swallow. This is of course unfortunate, because really the USG "control of the root zone file" obsession is not such a big deal anymore given the fact that Icann has advanced reasonably in its efforts to enhance pluralist and international participation, and carrying out a solution like you propose would defuse the other "pole" -- those who believe that outside of the ITU there is no intelligent life. But how to convince the USG and the US Congress that this craze no longer makes sense? As to why ISOC, RIRs etc do not dare to make proposals, there is a frequent recurrence of the other "pole": "do not fix what is not broken"... Witness the recent article by Vint Cerf in the NYT ressurrecting the "devil versus good doers" parable. frt rgds --c.a. On 06/26/2012 02:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> From: Avri >> Reply-To:, Avri >> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:28:07 +0200 >> To: >> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous >> Internet" ? >> >> Hi, >> >> Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction? >> >> >> avri >> > > > Well yes - in terms of some other issues. Interesting to read Paul Levins > account of this today - > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120625_a_history_of_holding_icann_to_account > / > > 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? Has any alternative proposal to the > unsatisfactory status quo ever been proposed by any of these relevant > bodies? > > Ian Peter > >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in >>> root >>> zone management (among other things). >>> >>> I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight >>> function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and >>> balances in >>> current procedures to not need such a role. >>> >>> Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of >>> the >>> internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any >>> functions. >>> >>> If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded >>> agreement >>> with GAC. >>> >>> If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with >>> are >>> likely to be far worse. >>> >>> Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and >>> individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but >>> instead >>> do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! >>> >>> This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current >>> appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement >>> of >>> ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another >>> function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in >>> the >>> way of sensible internet governance. >>> >>> The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only >>> unneccessary >>> but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of >>> them. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder >>> >>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 >>> To:, David Conrad >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >>> "Autonomous Internet" ? >>> >>> >>> On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight >>> mechanism? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete >>> example >>>>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at >>> one? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you >>> want I can >>>>> re state it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) >>> proposal or, >>>> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline >>> of lofty >>>> goals or possible models. Does such exist? >>>> >>> >>> In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way >>> forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and >>> principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those >>> approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this >>> general >>> method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues >>> respected. >>> The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are >>> >>> (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and >>> limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with >>> the >>> required authority >>> >>> (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same >>> statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the >>> hosting country, which could be the US >>> >>> (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current >>> distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF >>> etc) >>> >>> (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned >>> treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling >>> with it, >>> in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab >>> initio >>> evolve its own rules, procedures etc. >>> >>> (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional >>> representation. Within each region the country from which members would >>> come >>> will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to >>> ensure >>> that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of >>> the >>> government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national >>> process. Some linkages with highest level national technical >>> institutions >>> can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) >>> >>> (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained >>> by >>> the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed >>> procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not >>> consensus. >>> >>> (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can >>> look >>> at a possible role for the International court of justice) >>> >>>> >>>> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international >>> oversight >>>> mechanism" should do. >>> >>> More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. >>>> >>>> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents >>> of the >>>> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will >>> be >>>> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does >>> today. >>> >>> yes >>>> >>>> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear >>> to me how >>>> the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >>> country's >>>> government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG >>> will do. >>>> >>> >>> No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the >>> authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a >>> thing. >>> Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no >>> law, >>> neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an >>> international >>> body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based >>> on >>> international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an >>> extraordinary >>> defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). >>> It >>> can be subject to further international processes like those from the >>> UN and >>> the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of >>> the >>> countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international >>> court >>> of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight >>> body's >>> hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's >>> sake >>> US would do as well. >>> >>> regards, parminder >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 26 06:23:48 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:23:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE98B42.5090005@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE98B42.5090005@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FE98DB4.1010806@cafonso.ca> BTW, thanks for point out the excellent review on these issues by Paul Levins. frt rgds --c.a. On 06/26/2012 07:13 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Grande Ian, your questions and proposal are quite relevant. However, we > have to remind ourselves that the AoC was an agreement of behavior and > procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA), while > the GAC has (or should have) an advisory role like any other advisory > committee, which makes your proposal quite hard for the USG to swallow. > > This is of course unfortunate, because really the USG "control of the > root zone file" obsession is not such a big deal anymore given the fact > that Icann has advanced reasonably in its efforts to enhance pluralist > and international participation, and carrying out a solution like you > propose would defuse the other "pole" -- those who believe that outside > of the ITU there is no intelligent life. But how to convince the USG and > the US Congress that this craze no longer makes sense? > > As to why ISOC, RIRs etc do not dare to make proposals, there is a > frequent recurrence of the other "pole": "do not fix what is not > broken"... Witness the recent article by Vint Cerf in the NYT > ressurrecting the "devil versus good doers" parable. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 06/26/2012 02:55 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Avri >>> Reply-To:, Avri >>> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:28:07 +0200 >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >>> "Autonomous >>> Internet" ? >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Isn't the Affirmation of Commitment a step in that direction? >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >> >> >> Well yes - in terms of some other issues. Interesting to read Paul Levins >> account of this today - >> >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120625_a_history_of_holding_icann_to_account >> >> / >> >> 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? Has any alternative proposal to the >> unsatisfactory status quo ever been proposed by any of these relevant >> bodies? >> >> Ian Peter >> >>> >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in >>>> root >>>> zone management (among other things). >>>> >>>> I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight >>>> function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and >>>> balances in >>>> current procedures to not need such a role. >>>> >>>> Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of >>>> the >>>> internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any >>>> functions. >>>> >>>> If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded >>>> agreement >>>> with GAC. >>>> >>>> If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with >>>> are >>>> likely to be far worse. >>>> >>>> Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and >>>> individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but >>>> instead >>>> do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! >>>> >>>> This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current >>>> appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement >>>> of >>>> ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another >>>> function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in >>>> the >>>> way of sensible internet governance. >>>> >>>> The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only >>>> unneccessary >>>> but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of >>>> them. >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: parminder >>>> Reply-To:, parminder >>>> >>>> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 >>>> To:, David Conrad >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >>>> "Autonomous Internet" ? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight >>>> mechanism? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete >>>> example >>>>>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at >>>> one? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you >>>> want I can >>>>>> re state it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) >>>> proposal or, >>>>> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline >>>> of lofty >>>>> goals or possible models. Does such exist? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way >>>> forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and >>>> principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those >>>> approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this >>>> general >>>> method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues >>>> respected. >>>> The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are >>>> >>>> (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and >>>> limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with >>>> the >>>> required authority >>>> >>>> (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same >>>> statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the >>>> hosting country, which could be the US >>>> >>>> (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current >>>> distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF >>>> etc) >>>> >>>> (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned >>>> treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling >>>> with it, >>>> in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab >>>> initio >>>> evolve its own rules, procedures etc. >>>> >>>> (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional >>>> representation. Within each region the country from which members would >>>> come >>>> will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to >>>> ensure >>>> that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of >>>> the >>>> government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national >>>> process. Some linkages with highest level national technical >>>> institutions >>>> can also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) >>>> >>>> (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained >>>> by >>>> the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed >>>> procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not >>>> consensus. >>>> >>>> (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can >>>> look >>>> at a possible role for the International court of justice) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international >>>> oversight >>>>> mechanism" should do. >>>> >>>> More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. >>>>> >>>>> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents >>>> of the >>>>> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will >>>> be >>>>> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does >>>> today. >>>> >>>> yes >>>>> >>>>> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear >>>> to me how >>>>> the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >>>> country's >>>>> government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG >>>> will do. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the >>>> authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a >>>> thing. >>>> Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no >>>> law, >>>> neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an >>>> international >>>> body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based >>>> on >>>> international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an >>>> extraordinary >>>> defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). >>>> It >>>> can be subject to further international processes like those from the >>>> UN and >>>> the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of >>>> the >>>> countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international >>>> court >>>> of justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight >>>> body's >>>> hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's >>>> sake >>>> US would do as well. >>>> >>>> regards, parminder >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> -drc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Jun 26 06:54:34 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:54:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20120626105434.GA22988@nic.fr> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:28:25AM +0200, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote a message of 164 lines which said: > In addition, there are applications using the previous > facility. They may or may not use domain names instead of IP > addresses. All applications do (ping and traceroute do not count), at least in the normal usage. Simple experiment: shut down your DNS resolver for a while and see what works. Bonus: do it with unsuspecting users and measure how long it takes before they complain. By the way, this is precisely why the problem of unilateral control of the root by the US governement is a problem: DNS is actually important. > Unless your mailer or ISP does not conform to RFC 2822, you can mail > to: RFC 822, which is even older, said quite clearly "THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary system limitations, such as name tables which are not complete." > *pouzin@[137.194.2.14]* % telnet 137.194.2.14 smtp Trying 137.194.2.14... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host The router site-G06-odeon.rap.prd.fr (195.221.127.186) sends back an ICMP "unreachable - admin prohibited". You did not notice there was no longer any incoming email? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Jun 26 09:55:46 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:55:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internationalization of IANA oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1442DEC7-963E-46F3-9007-EFD9CDF44AB7@corp.arin.net> 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Jun 26 11:15:07 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:15:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries. Elashi brothers didn't kill anyone, as one can read it in the /Federal Register/. Nevertheless, they are in jail for their life. They sold hardware (PC and memory) to Malta, and the Maltese client delivered the goods to Syria and Lybia, that was forbidden by the American law. And they financed Palestinian schools and hospitals via a charity organisation that is blacklisted by the US. I didn't wish to discuss here the Elashi's case, a painful and complicate story. Without needing to study deeply the legal case, you could imagine that some countries do NOT distribute "terrorist" labels in the same way as the US do, even to the Hamas. The charity organization /Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development /is not blacklisted as a terrorist organization in all countries, even Western countries. And PC export is not so tightly regulated in all countries as in the US. Criminal here, innocent there. Even heroes... In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very political game. Countries at war often adopt some special acts that violate civil rights and basic freedom. Can we built a worldwide consensus about Internet based upon such special laws? By the way, I assume that communications in Iraq must not be very easy during the 1997-2002. Launching the .iq was certainely not as funny as the "big thing"... @+, kind regards, Dominique Le 25/06/12 23:40, David Conrad a écrit : > Dominique, > > On Jun 25, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> Le 25/06/12 19:59, David Conrad a écrit : >>> Out of curiosity, why do you believe ICANN (or the USG) "suspended" the .iq domain? My understanding (again, before my time at ICANN so I may be misinformed) was that the folks Postel delegated the domain to didn't do anything with it and got in trouble for violating US law when living in the US. >> Here we are!Elashi "/violated the US law/". As if US law was the >> world law! > > They were living in the US (Texas, as I understand it). I'm assuming > they did not have diplomatic immunity. Are you saying non-diplomats > living in the US are not subject to US law because they created a > commercial company that happened to convince Jon Postel in 1997 that > they could provide ccTLD services for Iraq? > >> But Elashi brosscould not have been convicted in a lot of "clean" >> countries such as UK or Australia. > > Not knowing the laws of either the UK or Australia, I can't comment. > >> And even in the States, CS rights organizations fight for Elashi freedom! > > If you say so. Not being a lawyer, knowing the details of the case, or > knowing CS rights organizations or the justification they're using to > argue for the Elashi brothers, I can't comment. > >> That's exactly why the root must not be ruled by only one country. > > I'm sorry, not following the logic here. While I might agree that > "oversight" (for some value of that variable) should not be performed > by a single country, I don't see how the .IQ/Elashi brothers case > argues for it. But I guess that's just me. > > Regards, > -drc > > > -- Dominique Lacroix Présidente Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 26 11:41:59 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:41:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Danger of YouTube/Dailymotion Censorship in WIPO Audiovisual Treaty? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FE9D847.7050104@gmail.com> Posted with permission from another list... Riaz -------- Original Message -------- From: Hannibal Travis Reply-To: Hannibal Travis T Articles 5-7 and 16 of the draft treaty causes me grave concern as a tool for censorship of remix culture and fair use works. Article 16 requires parties to provide civil remedies against those who negligently facilitate the distribution, importation for distribution, communication or making available to the public, "performances or copies of performances fixed in audiovisual fixations knowing that electronic rights management information has been removed or altered without authority." This would appear to prohibit, for example, the use of clips of news or sports content with copyright notices or DRM or browsewrap/clickwrap terms and conditions of use omitted, even when the clips are used in transformative works such as documentary film, news reporting, parodies, lip-synching, etc. The DMCA has a copyright management info provision (1202(a)) but it requires intentional removal or alteration not negligence (article 16 requires civil liability against those "having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right" under the treaty). There are already precedents for using the copyright management info provision of the DMCA to restrict remix culture: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/03/ap-uses-dmca-intimidate-hope-artist http://title17.net/2011/06/third-circuit-issues-important-dmca-and-fair-use-ruling/. http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/can-aps-copyright-claims-hold-meltwater Article 5 states that independently of any economic rights, and even after the transfer of them, a performer has a right as to fixations of live performances "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performances that would be prejudicial to his reputation, taking due account of the nature of audiovisual fixations." This of course could lead to endless litigation concerning mashups and the like, redolent of Lenz. v. Universal, Gilliam v. ABC, Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo, and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Article 6 seems to grant a broad new right to restrict the "communication" of unfixed performances not already subject to broadcast, exceptions to which "may" but do not need to be granted. Article 7 restricts "indirect reproduction" of performances; J.R. Pardo defines indirect reproduction as covering transient and incidental reproductions such as those which facilitate or make up technological communications systems. The temporary and incidental reproductions of performances are not carved out of the treaty's indirect reproduction right as they are in the EU Information Society Directive. This raises the risk of huge new ISP liabilities and resulting overreactions, the dangers of which led to DMCA 512. Article 17 forbids any formalities in the audiovisual work ownership right, which threatens the many important roles that formalities play in U.S. copyright law from playing their usual part. See e.g. Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright, 57 STAN. L. REV. 485, 489 (2004). As Jason Mazzone has argued: "The U.S. Copyright Office registers copyrighted works, but there is no official registry for works belonging to the public. As a result, publishers and the owners of physical copies of works plaster copyright notices on everything. These publishers and owners also restrict copying and extract payment from individuals who do not know better or find it preferable not to risk a lawsuit. These circumstances have produced fraud on an untold scale...." Imagine the scale of the ownership-related misrepresentations that will occur when formalities such as registration are done away with. John Bergmayer of PK argued in 2011 that: " Creating new kinds of 'middleman rights' could increase the complexity of dealing with content exponentially. It could give broadcasters the right to prevent recording shows for later viewing, or even effectively remove works from the public domain. " Although Article 13 provides that parties may provide similar exceptions and limitations to the audiovisual protection right as they do for copyright, paragraph 2 of that article subjects such exceptions and limitations to the three-step test which may not allow fair use to injure the normal licensing expectations of the owner of any right in the audiovisual performance. Cf. EU vs. USA on the small business exemption. Thus, the USA could be brought up on WTO claims or threatened claims of allowing fair use of audiovisual clips on YouTube and be forced to reform its copyright law in response; there are precedents for this from 1989 copyright reform and 2011 patent reform. Does anyone else have any information or thoughts about these issues with the treaty? Hannibal Travis Associate Professor of Law Florida International University - College of Law 11200 S.W. 8th St., RDB Hall, Miami, FL 33199 http://ssrn.com/author_id=496059 __________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 26 16:25:16 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:25:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Internationalization of IANA oversight In-Reply-To: <1442DEC7-963E-46F3-9007-EFD9CDF44AB7@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Thanks John for those references. They give me some hope, and it is good to see all bodies requesting change in this area. I guess a next step could be something like an internal review of procedures in this area (good idea to do these regularly anyway). Evolution of a consensus model following a review would enhance the prospects of eventual DOC acceptance - and there could always be a prolonged trial of a proposed model in parallel with existing procedures. A few steps in the right direction might be enough to hold off the establishment of a government only monstrosity as proposed by China and others. But I remain concerned that a perception of no action towards change in this area could actually make the problem worse. Ian > From: John Curran > Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:55:46 +0000 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Internationalization of IANA oversight > > 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: > > et-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: ³The NRO suggests > that ICANN, through these coming negotiations, should advocate for a staged > reduction of the level of DoC¹s 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).² > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 26 16:29:57 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:29:57 -1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <23ACBB67-0ABC-49FC-8AE9-5ED6D639C978@cafonso.ca> <4FE8CFB3.9040202@panamo.eu> <2E7E5F0B-ECC8-43C0-8DC0-914364047D09@virtualized.org> <4FE9D1FB.6050409@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> Dominique, On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries. No argument. My confusion here stems from the fact that we were talking about the USG "oversight" role with respect to root zone management. My understanding of the .IQ case (without commenting on whether there was a miscarriage of justice regarding the Elashi brothers) was that the USG "oversight" role was uninvoked because the request got stuck in the IANA processes, specifically with difficulties trying to establish the wishes of the Internet community, prior to the USG "oversight" role being called upon. > In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very political game. While I agree that the DNS has become very political, I'm unsure how the .IQ case shows this. The fact that the Elashi brothers were the administrative contacts for .IQ seems (as far as I can tell) coincidental to the difficulties they ran into. I figure the .HT case is far more interesting in the context of Internet Governance as it suggest the need for oversight. However, as mentioned, both of these were before my time at IANA so I may not have a full understanding. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jun 27 02:25:16 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:25:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who has a Mac? References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577488822667325882.html 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 27 02:54:40 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:54:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> Dear people, Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols. ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue. Just to let you know. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 27 03:19:28 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:19:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols. > > ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue. Carlos - I am the Chair of the NRO, which serves as the Address Supporting Organization within the ICANN structure. The ICANN ASO advises the ICANN Board on issues and policies related to Internet number resources. I'd be happy to meet with you in Prague at any time this week to this concern, but will also note that there is a session specifically on IPv6 at the ICANN Prague meeting (it on being held on Thursday - ) which would also provide an opportunity to raise it in a public forum context. Thanks! /John John Curran ARIN President and CEO Chair, NRO (ICANN ASO) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jun 27 03:26:23 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:26:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FEAAE30.9050408@cafonso.ca> References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: Carlos, I am not familiar with FBI and DEA meddling with IPv6 issues, nor who is Tom Anders. Could you briefly bring me up to speed Are you familiar with CCN (content centric networking)? I was puzzled by the short note in the AoC including IP addresses as a detail of the DNS. I try to understand up to where the USG plans ahead. jfc 2012/6/27, Carlos A. Afonso : > Dear people, > > Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting > of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate > (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN > should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they > (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and > protocols. > > ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. > I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute > silence of the board on this issue. > > Just to let you know. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 05:34:26 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:34:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: hello Assama, Very good questions but concerns remain: -most UN member countries have recognized the problem posed by the self in cyberspace. We're going right into debates on state sovereignty in cyberspace with all that it represents as claiming rights. Technology as the content of technology are intrinsically linked. You can not separate them. It was then to think, to be logical, to consider legal steps to manage these two aspects. But this procedure requires global cooperation. And here we are in the spirit of Chapter 11 of the Action Plan of Tunis. But the question now is at the level of criminal threats in cyberspace. In addition to ill-intentioned individuals, these crimes have also become a means of action for some states. I'm studying the Geneva Action Plan and Tunis Agenda to see if arrangements have been envisaged in this regard. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/6/25 International Ivission > Hi Baudouin, > > The issue arising here is that of ownership in the cyber space. > I want to believe that in the nearest future, the hypothesis of > partitioning the global web space into national web spaces might come to > the scene. > A scenario where internet users will need a kind of virtual visa to gain > access to a web space out of their national territory. > To anticipate this kind of an event, we should take the chinese very > serious and dig deep into the initiative. > May be its an polite method of contesting the legitimacy of the Internet > governing body? > ---------------- > permit me to ask the following question: > - Which is more important, the content in the internet or the technology? > - If you create your own technology, is there any guarantee that you will > not censor content? *(PIPA/SOPA)* > - If we create virtual borders in our cyber space, what will become of the > information society?+ > - Are we going to jeopardize the outcomes of Tunis Summit ? > > These are just a few questions for us to ponder on, especially or Chinese > friends and colleagues. > > > *___________________________________ > * > *Asama Abel Excel > **President and CEO > * I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL > Box 13040 Blvd de la rep. > Feu Rouge Bessengué > Douala Cameroon > E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : > info at ivission.net > T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / > T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 > Web: www.ivission.net > Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission > Facebook: www.facebook.com/ivission.internationl > Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission > NW: www.meetup.com/ivission > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Baudouin SCHOMBE > *À :* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > > *Cc :* lists at infosecurity.ch > *Envoyé le :* Lundi 25 juin 2012 10h33 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > hello all, > > I wonder about the relevance of the Chinese proposal for the autonomy of > the Internet! > Given the changes in strength of online crime or more of the core > cybrecriminalité in cyberspace, this proposal of autonomy of the internet would > it not justified? > There is reason to believe and even to believe that there are states that > are also cyber criminals! > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > 2012/6/17 michael gurstein > > If I am reading this below correctly... > > One possible effect of an Internet governance system which refuses to > "internationalize" as per the current discussion is one that fractures... > Not to say that the regimes in certain countries wouldn't try to force a > fracture in any case but just to say that the refusal to allow any > "flexibility" in the areas of internationalization of governance makes such > fractures very very much more likely and globally would increase support > for/weaken opposition to such developments. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu > [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio > Pietrosanti (naif) > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 4:04 AM > To: Liberation Technologies > Subject: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > Hi all, > > i wanted to notice that there is a new internet draft in IETF that should > make us think on the chinese government respect strategies to internet > governance issues. > > DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 > > This proposal by China Telecom, China Mobile & Guangdong Commercial College > propose. > > Even if we know that "root servers" are very well distributed across the > world / countries trough a collaborative system, chinese see this as a > "central control". > > From Introduction on Root DNS: > " But its central control > method is not suitable to autonomy and scalability and can't keep up > with the fast development of Internet. To national internet network, > owning its independent root DNS server and realize autonomy in > Internet is a problem not only for the cost but also for the > technical difficulty. It is almost impossible in current DNS > architecture." > > From AIP DNS Architecture: > "In order to realize the transition from Internet to Autonomous > Internet, each partition of current Internet should first realize > possible self-government and gradually reduce its dependence on the > foreign domain names, such as COM, NET et al." > > So basically the chinese play is not of being part of a collaborative > internet, but driving strategically the direction to become an independent > island in the world. > > -naif > _______________________________________________ > liberationtech mailing list > liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu > > Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: > > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click > above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily > digest?" > > You will need the user name and password you receive from the list > moderator > in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. > > Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Jun 27 06:13:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:13:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: It was Thomas Narten, the IETF Liaison to the Board. Bill On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:26 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Carlos, > I am not familiar with FBI and DEA meddling with IPv6 issues, nor who > is Tom Anders. Could you briefly bring me up to speed > > Are you familiar with CCN (content centric networking)? I was puzzled > by the short note in the AoC including IP addresses as a detail of the > DNS. I try to understand up to where the USG plans ahead. > > jfc > > > > 2012/6/27, Carlos A. Afonso : >> Dear people, >> >> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting >> of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate >> (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN >> should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they >> (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and >> protocols. >> >> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. >> I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute >> silence of the board on this issue. >> >> Just to let you know. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 27 06:21:22 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:21:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <4FEADEA2.1040104@cafonso.ca> Yes, sorry for the name mispell - Tom Narten, not Tom Anders. --c.a. On 06/27/2012 07:13 AM, William Drake wrote: > It was Thomas Narten, the IETF Liaison to the Board. > > Bill > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:26 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> Carlos, >> I am not familiar with FBI and DEA meddling with IPv6 issues, nor who >> is Tom Anders. Could you briefly bring me up to speed >> >> Are you familiar with CCN (content centric networking)? I was puzzled >> by the short note in the AoC including IP addresses as a detail of the >> DNS. I try to understand up to where the USG plans ahead. >> >> jfc >> >> >> >> 2012/6/27, Carlos A. Afonso: >>> Dear people, >>> >>> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting >>> of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate >>> (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN >>> should do about the FBI& DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they >>> (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and >>> protocols. >>> >>> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. >>> I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute >>> silence of the board on this issue. >>> >>> Just to let you know. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 27 06:25:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:55:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FE86C09.1060209@gmail.com> References: <1340627945.96004.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <4FE86C09.1060209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4FEADFAE.80606@itforchange.net> On Monday 25 June 2012 07:17 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Parminder > > Can this issue of the Chinese proposal (whatever its technical merits > or demerits - which if taken in the context of the debate of a single > root - is neither here nor there) not be seen as a response to > recalcitrance of the international community to get a legitimate (and > effective) governance system? This along the evolutionary path this > issue has followed from the marginalisation of the importance of CIR > at WSIS, to IGF-MS and "enhanced" cooperation failing to even raise > the issue meaningfully (with lots of cheerleaders in civil and uncivil > society "doing what is possible")... > > In other words the problem IS ICANN, and Internet Civil Society > discourse... In this context, de jure USG "control" over the CIR of > "net" the moves by the Chinese are hard to dismiss ethically, unless > one has some serious tolerance for double standards... or am I getting > it wrong again? Riaz, While I agree that the manner in which Internet's technical architecture is being managed today can be seen as providing the justification for alternatives of the kind presented by China in its 'Autonomous Internet' proposal, I think it is quite a dangerous move. The attempt obviously is to map the Internet over geo-political boundaries of nation states, which would nullify some of the most important promises and potentials of the Internet. A transnational Internet provides a transnational socio-political force that causes significant tension to the nation state wise organisation of our societies. If properly harnessed, this positive tension can confront and possibly correct many negative features of our current macro social organisation. I wont go into the detials here, but the drift of this assertion I am sure will be clear to you. However, at the same time, the same trans-nationality of the Internet has two very important negative effects (1) it further entrenches the trend opened up by globalisation whereby global capital is increasingly rid of any kind of political controls, the latter being nation-state based, at least at present. This will remain so till appropriate global political structures are built, which, as we have seen, are strongly resisted by many for obvious reasons. (2) It enables the US at the head of a unipolar world to extend its political, social, economic and cultural control in a manner that would have been hitherto impossible, before the Internet age. Obviously, as we have seen, the two negative effects (1) and (2) act strongly in concert, and we are witnessing the emergence of a new unipolar economic-political system, centred in the US, but catering mostly to its richer classes, and secondarily to the co-opted richer classes of other counties (including from the developing countries). This new global economic-political system ( i am looking for a pithy name for it, suggestions are welcome :) ) employs the Internet as one of its principal techno-social means of global control and domination. So, we, as in those interested in the global public interest, are facing two opposing pulls, whereby the trans-nationality of the Internet has both significant good and bad impacts. The main political question that we face is; how we can preserve the good impacts to the maximum and at the same time fight and resist the negative trends. This requires nuanced responses in the IG space. We cannot allow Internet's promising transnationality to go away, as attempted by the Chinese proposal, but at the same time we must strongly confront the growing power of the global business and the US, and the emerging problematic alliances between them. I understand that this can best be done by strengthening global governance institutions, in a manner that employs both idealism and pragmatism, meaning sufficient historical continuity. This is one of the prime responsibilities of the global civil society, to which, regrettably it hasnt risen as yet. regards, parminder > > Riaz > > Riaz > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 27 06:27:35 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:27:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <6AAC1CD7-9329-4B28-BD17-118ABC4D4BE7@corp.arin.net> Carlos - The short answer is that law enforcement does frequently rely on the Whois directory (IP Whois) in order to determine which organization should be the recipient of the subpoena or other lawful query for information. Service providers in the ARIN region are required to update the Whois directory with their IP address delegations to businesses in order to show sufficient utilization to qualify for their next IP address block. With IPv4, this is a frequent occurrence and has led to a directory which, while imperfect, is sufficient for this task. With IPv6, the address blocks are so large that service providers may never need another address block, and may not go through the effort of keeping the public Whois up-to-date. This is a concern that was discussed by government and law enforcement folks at the ARIN meeting, and led to the FBI raising concern that (unless it is otherwise addressed) IPv6 might result in degradation of the Whois registry which they rely upon. The FBI did not say "Don't deploy IPv6"; in fact, the USG has directed all agencies to make sure that their web sites are IPv6-enabled by the end of 2012. The FBI simply raised a concern about a potential side effect of IPv6 deployment, one which the community should consider in its various policy-making efforts. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Jun 27, 2012, at 12:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > It was Thomas Narten, the IETF Liaison to the Board. > > Bill > > On Jun 27, 2012, at 9:26 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> Carlos, >> I am not familiar with FBI and DEA meddling with IPv6 issues, nor who >> is Tom Anders. Could you briefly bring me up to speed >> >> Are you familiar with CCN (content centric networking)? I was puzzled >> by the short note in the AoC including IP addresses as a detail of the >> DNS. I try to understand up to where the USG plans ahead. >> >> jfc >> >> >> >> 2012/6/27, Carlos A. Afonso : >>> Dear people, >>> >>> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting >>> of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate >>> (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN >>> should do about the FBI & DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they >>> (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and >>> protocols. >>> >>> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. >>> I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute >>> silence of the board on this issue. >>> >>> Just to let you know. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 27 06:36:23 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:36:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <277343B3-9075-4514-8A64-DB5BE5B73D72@corp.arin.net> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> Thanks, John, and sorry again for mispelling Thomas Narten's name. The central point of my concerns is that ICANN usually jumps at the simple mention of a need for international Internet governance which would include the logical infrastructure of the Net -- its response is that this is already done by ICANN, that we should not "fix what is not broken" and so on. Now, when a grave issue like the one I mentioned is posed to the board, they mute or there are reactions like Thomas's -- it turns into just a technical names and numbers body. No longer an international Internet governance organization dedicated to the logical infrastructure of the network? frt rgds --c.a. On 06/27/2012 04:19 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI& DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols. >> >> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue. > > Carlos - > > I am the Chair of the NRO, which serves as the Address Supporting > Organization within the ICANN structure. The ICANN ASO advises > the ICANN Board on issues and policies related to Internet number > resources. > > I'd be happy to meet with you in Prague at any time this week to this > concern, but will also note that there is a session specifically on > IPv6 at the ICANN Prague meeting (it on being held on Thursday - > ) which would also provide an > opportunity to raise it in a public forum context. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > ARIN President and CEO > Chair, NRO (ICANN ASO) > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 27 07:48:59 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:48:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FEAE227.9010306@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Carlos, please use the opportunity mentioned by John. It is a pity that you have sat in at least four hours of ISOC meetings while in Prague, and in many others, and have not put forward these questions to the community of experts present. Your question goes to the essence of what is ICANN's mission and what it is not. It will be educational to clarify that important matter with the example of IPv6-related policy. ICANN's remit is concerned with allocation, not deployment. But why would I ask you to accept my explanation when you are meters and minutes away from better experts. 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 05:36 Hasta: John Curran CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN Thanks, John, and sorry again for mispelling Thomas Narten's name. The central point of my concerns is that ICANN usually jumps at the simple mention of a need for international Internet governance which would include the logical infrastructure of the Net -- its response is that this is already done by ICANN, that we should not "fix what is not broken" and so on. Now, when a grave issue like the one I mentioned is posed to the board, they mute or there are reactions like Thomas's -- it turns into just a technical names and numbers body. No longer an international Internet governance organization dedicated to the logical infrastructure of the network? frt rgds --c.a. On 06/27/2012 04:19 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI& DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols. >> >> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue. > > Carlos - > > I am the Chair of the NRO, which serves as the Address Supporting > Organization within the ICANN structure. The ICANN ASO advises > the ICANN Board on issues and policies related to Internet number > resources. > > I'd be happy to meet with you in Prague at any time this week to this > concern, but will also note that there is a session specifically on > IPv6 at the ICANN Prague meeting (it on being held on Thursday - > ) which would also provide an > opportunity to raise it in a public forum context. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > ARIN President and CEO > Chair, NRO (ICANN ASO) > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 27 08:25:55 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:25:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D4833F046@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> Alejandro, the meeting I sat through was not "designed" for this, lasted less than one and a half hour, but I did mention the issue. Yes, it goes to the essence of what Icann mission is (or should be). It is *not* a technical matter, no matter how close I am from machine-room experts. No, it is *not* simply a technical matter to be bureucratically given to Ietf or even Nro. The Internet governance organization dealing with logical infra is Icann, not its branches or related technical fora. Unless it is not, I am wrong and we do need to look for one. Fraternal regards --c.a. Sent from a tablet On 27/06/2012, at 13:48, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Carlos, > > please use the opportunity mentioned by John. It is a pity that you have sat in at least four hours of ISOC meetings while in Prague, and in many others, and have not put forward these questions to the community of experts present. > > Your question goes to the essence of what is ICANN's mission and what it is not. It will be educational to clarify that important matter with the example of IPv6-related policy. ICANN's remit is concerned with allocation, not deployment. But why would I ask you to accept my explanation when you are meters and minutes away from better experts. > > 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 05:36 > Hasta: John Curran > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN > > Thanks, John, and sorry again for mispelling Thomas Narten's name. > > The central point of my concerns is that ICANN usually jumps at the > simple mention of a need for international Internet governance which > would include the logical infrastructure of the Net -- its response is > that this is already done by ICANN, that we should not "fix what is not > broken" and so on. > > Now, when a grave issue like the one I mentioned is posed to the board, > they mute or there are reactions like Thomas's -- it turns into just a > technical names and numbers body. No longer an international Internet > governance organization dedicated to the logical infrastructure of the > network? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 06/27/2012 04:19 AM, John Curran wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> Yesterday (jun.26) here at ICANN 44 meeting in Prague, we had a meeting of the ICANN board with the stakeholder group in which I participate (NCSG). I had the opportunity to ask the board what they thought ICANN should do about the FBI& DEA meddling in IPv6 deployment, as they (ICANN) are the planet's governance body for names, *numbers* and protocols. >>> >>> ICANN's Tom Anders immediately replied ICANN has nothing to do with it. I was surprised, not only by Tom's statement, but also by the absolute silence of the board on this issue. >> >> Carlos - >> >> I am the Chair of the NRO, which serves as the Address Supporting >> Organization within the ICANN structure. The ICANN ASO advises >> the ICANN Board on issues and policies related to Internet number >> resources. >> >> I'd be happy to meet with you in Prague at any time this week to this >> concern, but will also note that there is a session specifically on >> IPv6 at the ICANN Prague meeting (it on being held on Thursday - >> ) which would also provide an >> opportunity to raise it in a public forum context. >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> John Curran >> ARIN President and CEO >> Chair, NRO (ICANN ASO) >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 27 08:44:54 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FEB0046.8090105@itforchange.net> Dear Ian I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it. So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an international organisation, through an express agreement among all actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right? Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee, without any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board is the final authority for everything. Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of power by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic parametres and general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do you think that such institutional separation of roles and power can be done within ICANN? If so, how do you suggest to go about it? (The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have such a body as different from the board as the executive body, for basic law/policy compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, how to populate it, and how to structure its relationship with other parts of ICANN, especially its board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself does not abuse its power.) Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to take up wider 'public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources' (to quote Tunis agenda). If not so mandated, is it now your proposal that it now takes up such a role. That is an important issue to clarify. I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you now opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of NCUC in this regard? Regards, parminder On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG role in > root zone management (among other things). > > I have a different proposal altogether -- just strike it. The > oversight function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks > and balances in current procedures to not need such a role. > > Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests > of the internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of > any functions. > > If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded > agreement with GAC. > > If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up > with are likely to be far worse. > > Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations > and individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters > but instead do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! > > This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current > appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement > of ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or > another function or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - > to get in the way of sensible internet governance. > > The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only > unneccessary but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should > get rid of them. > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 > *To: *, David Conrad > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > Parminder, > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why > would the same safe-guards not operate in case of a > international oversight mechanism? > > > > They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a > concrete example of said "international oversight > mechanism". Can you point me at one? > > > > I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I > you want I can re state it. > > > > > I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) > proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or prototype, > not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist? > > > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the > 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas > and principles, and then progressively move towards the details. > Those approaching this debate from the technical side must respect > this general method as they want their method of deciding on technical > issues respected. The main broad points of the model that I had > proposed are > > (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and > limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with > the required authority > > (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the > same statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement > with the hosting country, which could be the US > > (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current > distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, > IETF etc) > > (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the > mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose > coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN > rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, procedures etc. > > (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional > representation. Within each region the country from which members > would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of > innovation to ensure that although the member will have some clear > relationship/ backing of the government, her selection/ affirmation > would require a broader national process. Some linkages with highest > level national technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas > are welcome here.) > > (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly > constrained by the relevant international law, exercised through > clearly detailed procedures, and based on a sufficiently high > majority, if not consensus. > > (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can > look at a possible role for the International court of justice) > > > I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international > oversight mechanism" should do. > > > More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > > > You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the > contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international > oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root > zone modification as the USG does today. > > > yes > > > Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't > clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would be > able to stop that country's government from going rogue and doing > what you believe the evil USG will do. > > > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the > authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a > thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it > breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break > into an international body's premises which is protected by host > country agreement and based on international treaty, and interfering > in its work, will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, > the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to further > international processes like those from the UN and the international > court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the countries > with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of > justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's > hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's > sake US would do as well. > > regards, parminder > > > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 27 08:56:20 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:56:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4EC10358-7027-4DCC-90A6-6A51BA402A99@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:26 PM, "c.a." wrote: > It is *not* a technical matter, no matter how close I am from machine-room experts. No, it is *not* simply a technical matter to be bureucratically given to Ietf or even Nro. The Internet governance organization dealing with logical infra is Icann, not its branches or related technical fora. Unless it is not, I am wrong and we do need to look for one. 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? /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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 27 09:32:32 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:32:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <7FD67E29-30FC-4AFA-9170-3D6D421D04CA@arin.net> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> Hi John, simple: Rirs and supporting/advisory organizations are part of the Internet governance body called Icann (unless the number orgs have become fully independent and Icann no longer oversees then, which is not what I know), so since this is a govenance issue which might gravely affect privacy, neutrality and other rights' issues, I thought it proper to direct the question to Icann itself. No big deal, really -- the answer I expected at the board meeting was simply "we will certainly look into it and direct the issue to our proper channels". But the board remained silent. Fraternal regards, --c.a. Sent from a tablet On 27/06/2012, at 14:56, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:26 PM, "c.a." wrote: > >> It is *not* a technical matter, no matter how close I am from machine-room experts. No, it is *not* simply a technical matter to be bureucratically given to Ietf or even Nro. The Internet governance organization dealing with logical infra is Icann, not its branches or related technical fora. Unless it is not, I am wrong and we do need to look for one. > > 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? > > /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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 27 09:41:10 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:11:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEB0046.8090105@itforchange.net> References: <4FEB0046.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FEB0D76.9030801@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 27 June 2012 06:14 PM, parminder wrote: > Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations > and individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters > but instead do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! Ian, I forgot to mention that I very much agree with your above statement. Yes, we need to act. 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 apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 27 10:18:46 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:18:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483401A0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Carlos, CA: the board remained silent. AP: add "politely". You are supposed to have learned and understood this stuff after more than 15 years in this space. Alejandro Pisanty Fraternal regards, --c.a. Sent from a tablet On 27/06/2012, at 14:56, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:26 PM, "c.a." wrote: > >> It is *not* a technical matter, no matter how close I am from machine-room experts. No, it is *not* simply a technical matter to be bureucratically given to Ietf or even Nro. The Internet governance organization dealing with logical infra is Icann, not its branches or related technical fora. Unless it is not, I am wrong and we do need to look for one. > > 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? > > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 27 10:28:04 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:28:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <573E28BC-1966-4560-A583-7A4D754AE33F@cafonso.ca> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, c.a. wrote: > Hi John, simple: Rirs and supporting/advisory organizations are part of the Internet governance body called Icann (unless the number orgs have become fully independent and Icann no longer oversees then, which is not what I know), The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) _predate_ and indeed are independent of ICANN, although the RIRs and ICANN have agreed by Memorandum of Understanding that the RIRs should participate in the ICANN model for purposes of technical coordination in global policy development for Internet number resources. This coordination includes defining the relationship between the Internet addressing community (represented by the RIRs and their nearly 15000 members) and ICANN, as well as defining mechanisms for recommending for the recognition of new RIRs to the ICANN Board. The RIRs coordinate collectively via the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the NRO fulfills the role, responsibilities and functions of the eeee Address Supporting Organization as defined within the ICANN Bylaws. As true membership organizations for all those using IP address space, the RIRs have very strong validity as representative governance organizations, and each has committed to transparent policy development processes which are open to all. > so since this is a govenance issue which might gravely affect privacy, neutrality and other rights' issues, I thought it proper to direct the question to Icann itself. The question is most appropriately referred to each RIR community which is discussing the issue. There may be regional policy making in this area, or even global policy making if sufficient consensus is present. If global policy making occurs, then the role of the community-elected ASO Address Council is to review to make sure that the same policy was adopted in all regions, that processes providing for open and transparent development were followed, and then to recommend the global policy for ratification by the ICANN Board. In fact, this particular issue of accuracy of Whois once we move to IPv6 is being already being discussed in the ARIN region, simply because that's the region where it was raised. No policy proposals have been made (and it should be noted that ARIN's existing Whois policy already requires that Internet service providers record their delegations into the public Whois today, but there is concern that policy alone might not suffice to provide sufficient incentives.) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO AIRN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 27 11:31:26 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:31:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <1FDE48F3-8943-4AE6-8F28-670589E95852@arin.net> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: 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. frt rgds --c.a. Sent from a tablet On 27/06/2012, at 16:28, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 3:32 PM, c.a. wrote: > >> Hi John, simple: Rirs and supporting/advisory organizations are part of the Internet governance body called Icann (unless the number orgs have become fully independent and Icann no longer oversees then, which is not what I know), > > The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) _predate_ and indeed are > independent of ICANN, although the RIRs and ICANN have agreed by > Memorandum of Understanding that the RIRs should participate in > the ICANN model for purposes of technical coordination in global > policy development for Internet number resources. This coordination > includes defining the relationship between the Internet addressing > community (represented by the RIRs and their nearly 15000 members) > and ICANN, as well as defining mechanisms for recommending for the > recognition of new RIRs to the ICANN Board. The RIRs coordinate > collectively via the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the > NRO fulfills the role, responsibilities and functions of the > eeee Address Supporting Organization as defined within the ICANN Bylaws. > > As true membership organizations for all those using IP address > space, the RIRs have very strong validity as representative > governance organizations, and each has committed to transparent > policy development processes which are open to all. > >> so since this is a govenance issue which might gravely affect privacy, neutrality and other rights' issues, I thought it proper to direct the question to Icann itself. > > The question is most appropriately referred to each RIR community > which is discussing the issue. There may be regional policy making > in this area, or even global policy making if sufficient consensus > is present. If global policy making occurs, then the role of the > community-elected ASO Address Council is to review to make sure > that the same policy was adopted in all regions, that processes > providing for open and transparent development were followed, and > then to recommend the global policy for ratification by the ICANN > Board. > > In fact, this particular issue of accuracy of Whois once we move > to IPv6 is being already being discussed in the ARIN region, simply > because that's the region where it was raised. No policy proposals > have been made (and it should be noted that ARIN's existing Whois > policy already requires that Internet service providers record their > delegations into the public Whois today, but there is concern that > policy alone might not suffice to provide sufficient incentives.) > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > AIRN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 11:54:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:54:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:31 AM, c.a. wrote: > Thanks for the detailed info, John. However, predating does not mean they are not under Icann oversight I would urge you to read the MoU john referenced. It is an interesting read. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Jun 27 12:21:31 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:21:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] WTPF May 2013 References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> <"4EC103 58-7027-4DCC-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> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEFE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Report of the Chair June 2012.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 48760 bytes Desc: Report of the Chair June 2012.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SG Report 2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 101376 bytes Desc: SG Report 2012.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Jun 27 13:17:59 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:17:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jun 27 14:55:21 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:55:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: John, the problem is of historic origin. The RIR regional concept for what is universal (numbers) and the ICANN's desire of being unversal in what is actually CLASS oriented (names and 65,535 roots) create distorsions. These distorsions are enlighted by the necessary multitechnology convergence of the whole digital ecosystem (far outside of the Internet, but very near from the users - mobiles (and GSMA), TV, Video on demand, Big Data, Wiki 3.0, etc.) Moves like IPv6, IDNA, vanity TLDs extend the IPv4 ASCII Internet, and therefore are actually new technologies, even if very near from the IETF one. As such discussing their specific concerns (like FBI, or Chinese DNS Draft) necessarily raises the question of the nature, position, need of ICANN. Because these questions should be discussed more globally than just at the end to end Internet level. Is it the proper time? For some yes, for others not. How much is concrete, how much does already exist, how much is fairy tales and dreams? Also, in addition to the collaterality of new technologies, there is the question I raise through the Internet+ (validated through IDNA), and that Google started experimenting as Google+, of the use of the Internet end to end strata to support fringe to fringe networking concepts, the same as the IETF Internet added-value builds up on top of the ITU documented bandwidth. The Internet+ Governance is NOT to be the Internet Governance, the same as the ITU cannot be a part (but a support) of the Internet Governance. However, how the Internet+ Governance is going to organize is a matter no one wants yet to consider simply because the Internet+ is still in the limbos of my I_Ds and in the growing experience of Google. And gov.power and market.shares will have to be reconsidered. For the time being my reading of the situation is that we have four options: - status quo + patches (ICANN) : at least until what ICANN requested in ICP-3 has been truely considered (I am the only one having matched that experimentation). - adaptation of that status quo to the reality within the ICANN framework, like the Chinese DNS I_D (I believe it proposes the opposite to what has been read in here). - take-over of the Internet Governance by the USG or Google if the situation degrades slowly, or by the UN in case of emergency (cyber-catastrophe/war) as a group of existing or currently planned governmental or dual (Gov+Industry) back-up solutions. - eventual emergence of the Internet+ Governance. My feeling is that the ITU stratum was Gov+Industry governed, the Internet is Industry+Gov governed and the Internet+ stratum will be Industry+Lead users+Gov governed. Logically, the ultimate communication stratum, I call the Intersem (semiotic Internet of Ideas) will further on (not today!) support inter-comprehension might be people centric and culturally governed as demanded by the WSIS resolutions. We are experimenting today, as we do for years, some prepartory but more ad more pressing questions of this long term evolution that is/will be supported by new technologies (just let think of the named address-free data neworking solutions and the way the current Internet technology can support it in using IPv6 addresses as a logistic contribution to semantic addresssing). These are concepts out of the IETF scope and Internet Governance stratum, but not of the real life "international newtrok" (for which we need to introduce the future concrete solutions today). jfc 2012/6/27, John Curran : > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 27 16:23:00 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:23:00 -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> <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> Message-ID: <4FEB6BA4.4060405@cafonso.ca> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 27 16:58:42 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:58:42 +1000 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEB0046.8090105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, comments inline From: parminder Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530 To: Ian Peter Cc: , David Conrad Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Dear Ian I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it. So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an international organisation, through an express agreement among all actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right? IP ­ yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad support as a step for ICANN across this list Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee, without any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board is the final authority for everything. IP ­ Yes, subject to a body of international law and its charter. The Board is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) and as such provides a good level of accountability. If there were to be an oversight, I think it should be something like a High Court or Federal Court that determines the lawfulness of ICANN actions when and if required ­ certainly not another elected body or governmental body. Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of power by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic parametres and general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do you think that such institutional separation of roles and power can be done within ICANN? If so, how do you suggest to go about it? IP ­ Yes, see above (The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have such a body as different from the board as the executive body, for basic law/policy compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, how to populate it, and how to structure its relationship with other parts of ICANN, especially its board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself does not abuse its power.) IP ­ see above. Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to take up wider 'public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources' (to quote Tunis agenda). If not so mandated, is it now your proposal that it now takes up such a role. That is an important issue to clarify. IP. A difficult one, and the ³thick vs thin² ICANN debates have run for a long time. I don¹t have an immediate answer, but I don¹t see it as advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a little bit of the picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at least worth considering whether the appropriate way to fill them is to expand the ICANN brief. But there will always be other bodies with specific area of interest (WIPO etc) and I don¹t think that¹s a bad thing I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you now opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of NCUC in this regard? IP ­ although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC ­ like others I was asked to join to support the work of the constituency ­ I removed myself from the mailing list several years ago because I was disinterested in much of the administrivia that seems to dominate ICANN constituency considerations. So I cant help here. My non-involvement does not suggest that what ICANN does is unimportant ­ I think it is, but I also think that what bank tellers do in their organisations is important too. But in both cases I think their work and daily procedures is of little interest to me (until such time as something goes wrong of course). In any case, clearly ICANN raises public policy issues and these should be discussed. IP -As a last remark on this ­ my suggestion that ICANN be responsible for these issues is not really an endorsement of the way it currently is. I find it very bloated and quite eccentric. However, it does involve all stakeholders and genuinely tries to represent their interests. On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous > Internet" ? Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG > role in root zone management (among other things). > > I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight > function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and balances in > current procedures to not need such a role. > > Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of the > internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any functions. > > If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded agreement > with GAC. > > If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with are > likely to be far worse. > > Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and > individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but instead > do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! > > This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current > appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement of ICANN > is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another function or an > anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in the way of sensible > internet governance. > > The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only unneccessary > but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of them. > > Ian Peter > > > > > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 > To: , David Conrad > Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > >> >> Parminder, >> >> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete example >>>> of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can >>> re state it. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, >> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty >> goals or possible models. Does such exist? >> >> > > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way > forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and > principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those > approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general > method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. > The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are > > (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and limits > of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the required > authority > > (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same > statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the hosting > country, which could be the US > > (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current distributed > CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > > (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned treaty > - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it, in a > manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve > its own rules, procedures etc. > > (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional > representation. Within each region the country from which members would come > will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure > that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the > government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national > process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions can > also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) > > (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by the > relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed procedures, and > based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. > > (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can look at > a possible role for the International court of justice) > > >> >> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight >> mechanism" should do. >> > > More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > >> >> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the >> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be >> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. >> > > yes > >> >> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me >> how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >> country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG >> will do. >> >> > > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the > authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. > Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law, > neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international > body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on > international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary > defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can > be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and the > international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the > countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of > justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting > outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US would do > as well. > > regards, parminder > > >> >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Jun 27 17:08:47 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:08:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4E46242B-B9E2-431C-92EE-55C006CC49FC@virtualized.org> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> Message-ID: <4FEB765F.7010206@panamo.eu> David, Beyond some wandering, I think we agree. The personal destiny of the .iq registry managers doesn't seem related to an IANA abuse, neither from USG, nor from ICANN. Ok on that precise point. BTW, it was the sense of my first post on the topic. But - I wonder why - I cannot help but to imagine may be sort of... coincidental relations between the country designated by the .iq ccTLD, the Palestinian origin of the registry managers and the cruelty of their trials and sentences. And the global impression is not at the advantage of the US, I'm sad to tell you such a thing. At the contrary, it seems to be a stone on the increasing militarization of the Internet. The America the world liked, the one of the Founding fathers, sister of the European Enlightenments, is another one. @+, best, Dominique Le 26/06/12 22:29, David Conrad a écrit : > Dominique, > > On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries. > No argument. My confusion here stems from the fact that we were talking about the USG "oversight" role with respect to root zone management. My understanding of the .IQ case (without commenting on whether there was a miscarriage of justice regarding the Elashi brothers) was that the USG "oversight" role was uninvoked because the request got stuck in the IANA processes, specifically with difficulties trying to establish the wishes of the Internet community, prior to the USG "oversight" role being called upon. > >> In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very political game. > While I agree that the DNS has become very political, I'm unsure how the .IQ case shows this. The fact that the Elashi brothers were the administrative contacts for .IQ seems (as far as I can tell) coincidental to the difficulties they ran into. I figure the .HT case is far more interesting in the context of Internet Governance as it suggest the need for oversight. However, as mentioned, both of these were before my time at IANA so I may not have a full understanding. > > 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jun 27 18:22:49 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:22:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEB765F.7010206@panamo.eu> References: <20120618105400.GA20794@nic.fr> <4FDF8850.5080908@infosecurity.ch> <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> <4FEB765F.7010206@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, do you know if they were/are jailed in Guantanamo? Never mind what these people actually are/did 1) they should be protected by diplomatic immunity (since they never hiden who they were and were they operated) until proved to be actual terrorists by an international court (what did not prevent the US to put to jail or to expulse them). 2) they assume a national public service: that service should have been continued to the benefit of Iraquis people and to all the people accessing their hosts. Every possibility should have been investigated to that end, including a temporary management by ICANN wich is accountable of the stability of the _entire_ DNS CLASS "IN" (ICANN/NTIA). jfc 2012/6/27, Dominique Lacroix
: > David, > > Beyond some wandering, I think we agree. The personal destiny of the .iq > registry managers doesn't seem related to an IANA abuse, neither from > USG, nor from ICANN. Ok on that precise point. BTW, it was the sense of > my first post on the topic. > But - I wonder why - I cannot help but to imagine may be sort of... > coincidental relations between the country designated by the .iq ccTLD, > the Palestinian origin of the registry managers and the cruelty of their > trials and sentences. > And the global impression is not at the advantage of the US, I'm sad to > tell you such a thing. At the contrary, it seems to be a stone on the > increasing militarization of the Internet. > The America the world liked, the one of the Founding fathers, sister of > the European Enlightenments, is another one. > > @+, best, Dominique > > > Le 26/06/12 22:29, David Conrad a écrit : >> Dominique, >> >> On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >>> Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply >>> showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries. >> No argument. My confusion here stems from the fact that we were talking >> about the USG "oversight" role with respect to root zone management. My >> understanding of the .IQ case (without commenting on whether there was a >> miscarriage of justice regarding the Elashi brothers) was that the USG >> "oversight" role was uninvoked because the request got stuck in the IANA >> processes, specifically with difficulties trying to establish the wishes >> of the Internet community, prior to the USG "oversight" role being called >> upon. >> >>> In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very >>> political game. >> While I agree that the DNS has become very political, I'm unsure how the >> .IQ case shows this. The fact that the Elashi brothers were the >> administrative contacts for .IQ seems (as far as I can tell) coincidental >> to the difficulties they ran into. I figure the .HT case is far more >> interesting in the context of Internet Governance as it suggest the need >> for oversight. However, as mentioned, both of these were before my time at >> IANA so I may not have a full understanding. >> >> 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 apisan at unam.mx Wed Jun 27 19:34:35 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:34:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FBI, DEA, IPv6 & ICANN In-Reply-To: <4FEB6BA4.4060405@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> <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> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483414EA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Jun 27 20:20:04 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 02:20:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <20120626105434.GA22988@nic.fr> References: <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EF37F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20120626105434.GA22988@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer < bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:28:25AM +0200, > Louis Pouzin (well) wrote a message of 164 lines which > said: > > [..] > > Unless your mailer or ISP does not conform to RFC 2822, you can mail > > to: > > RFC 822, which is even older, said quite clearly "THE USE OF > DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It is permitted only as > a means of bypassing temporary system limitations, such as name tables > which are not complete." > > > *pouzin@[137.194.2.14]* > > % telnet 137.194.2.14 smtp > Trying 137.194.2.14... > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > > The router site-G06-odeon.rap.prd.fr (195.221.127.186) sends back an > ICMP "unreachable - admin prohibited". You did not notice there was no > longer any incoming email? > Correct. I didn't check it recently. One more thing to look into. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find 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 Jun 28 02:24:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:24:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] DNS Extension for Autonomous Internet(AIP) Message-ID: Dear All, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-00 Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Twitter: @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 Thu Jun 28 02:46:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:16:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> Ian, Thanks for your comments. Just to summarize or paraphrase areas of agreements which can help us move forward. You agree that ICANN should become an international organisation, cutting its special links with the US, and enter into a host country agreement (for which you say there is a rough consensus on this list). You also agree that this will require some kind of an international law and international charter, which therefore should be worked towards. I understand that AoC is not the kind of thing we are asking for here, which Carlos defined as "an agreement of behavior and procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA)". We seek a 'really' international law and status for ICANN. Perhaps we can park these two elements has having a good degree of agreement among the proposals for dealing with the oversight issue that we have seen lately in this group. 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. So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such public policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them. Many of these issues are just too important for us to allow institutional vacuums to exist around them, and they will be increasingly more so. This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed. You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain how ICANN would systematically address the various public policy issues, and not duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often typically does (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 issue). ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role with regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present. Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and functioning match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is developed in terms of a narrower technical policy role, and you will accept that the requirements of the two kind of roles can be different). The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, whereby it would, itself, fully get into public policy considerations in making its decisions. This, as per my understanding, is contrary to NCUC's stand till now. There are some key NCUC members on this list who can clarify. parminder On Thursday 28 June 2012 02:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, comments inline > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530 > *To: *Ian Peter > *Cc: *, David Conrad > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Dear Ian > > I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it. > > So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an > international organisation, through an express agreement among all > actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host > country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right? > * > IP -- yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad support > as a step for ICANN across this list > * > > Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee, > without any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board > is the final authority for everything. > > *IP -- Yes, subject to a body of international law and its charter. > The Board is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) and as such > provides a good level of accountability. If there were to be an > oversight, I think it should be something like a High Court or Federal > Court that determines the lawfulness of ICANN actions when and if > required -- certainly not another elected body or governmental body. > * > Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of > power by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic > parametres and general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do > you think that such institutional separation of roles and power can be > done within ICANN? If so, how do you suggest to go about it? > > *IP -- Yes, see above > * > (The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a > part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have > such a body as different from the board as the executive body, for > basic law/policy compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, > how to populate it, and how to structure its relationship with other > parts of ICANN, especially its board. And of course, how to ensure > that it itself does not abuse its power.) > > *IP -- see above. > * > Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly > defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to > take up wider 'public policy issues associated with the coordination > and management of critical Internet resources' (to quote Tunis > agenda). If not so mandated, is it now your proposal that it now takes > up such a role. That is an important issue to clarify. > > *IP. A difficult one, and the "thick vs thin" ICANN debates have run > for a long time. I don't have an immediate answer, but I don't see it > as advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a little bit > of the picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at least worth > considering whether the appropriate way to fill them is to expand the > ICANN brief. But there will always be other bodies with specific area > of interest (WIPO etc) and I don't think that's a bad thing > * > I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society > constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only > technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its > decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you now > opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of NCUC in > this regard? > > *IP -- although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC -- like > others I was asked to join to support the work of the constituency -- > I removed myself from the mailing list several years ago because I was > disinterested in much of the administrivia that seems to dominate > ICANN constituency considerations. So I cant help here. My > non-involvement does not suggest that what ICANN does is unimportant > -- I think it is, but I also think that what bank tellers do in their > organisations is important too. But in both cases I think their work > and daily procedures is of little interest to me (until such time as > something goes wrong of course). In any case, clearly ICANN raises > public policy issues and these should be discussed. > > IP -As a last remark on this -- my suggestion that ICANN be > responsible for these issues is not really an endorsement of the way > it currently is. I find it very bloated and quite eccentric. However, > it does involve all stakeholders and genuinely tries to represent > their interests. > > * > > > > > On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? Parminder suggests a structure to take > over the unilateral USG role in root zone management (among other > things). > > I have a different proposal altogether -- just strike it. The > oversight function is completely unnecessary, and there enough > checks and balances in current procedures to not need such a role. > > Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best > interests of the internet not to have the perception of unilateral > control of any functions. > > If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded > agreement with GAC. > > If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up > with are likely to be far worse. > > Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those > organisations and individuals who are in a position to take a lead > on such matters but instead do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! > > This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The > current appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. > Improvement of ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another > body- or another function or an anachronistic agreement or set of > agreements - to get in the way of sensible internet governance. > > The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only > unneccessary but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we > should get rid of them. > > Ian Peter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 > *To: *, David Conrad > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for > a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > Parminder, > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > But even if we were to agree to what you argue, > why would the same safe-guards not operate in case > of a international oversight mechanism? > > > > > They probably would, but hard to say for certain > without a concrete example of said "international > oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? > > > > > I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and > I you want I can re state it. > > > > > > I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) > proposal or, more preferably, an operational example or > prototype, not an outline of lofty goals or possible models. > Does such exist? > > > > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the > 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger > ideas and principles, and then progressively move towards the > details. Those approaching this debate from the technical side > must respect this general method as they want their method of > deciding on technical issues respected. The main broad points of > the model that I had proposed are > > (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures > and limits of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides > it with the required authority > > (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the > same statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement > with the hosting country, which could be the US > > (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current > distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, > IETF etc) > > (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the > mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some > loose coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to > typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, > procedures etc. > > (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable > regional representation. Within each region the country from which > members would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some > degree of innovation to ensure that although the member will have > some clear relationship/ backing of the government, her selection/ > affirmation would require a broader national process. Some > linkages with highest level national technical institutions can > also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) > > (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly > constrained by the relevant international law, exercised through > clearly detailed procedures, and based on a sufficiently high > majority, if not consensus. > > (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process > (can look at a possible role for the International court of justice) > > > > I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the > "international oversight mechanism" should do. > > > More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > > > You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the > contents of the root zone. Presumably, the "international > oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the operations of root > zone modification as the USG does today. > > > yes > > > Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't > clear to me how the "international oversight mechanism" would > be able to stop that country's government from going rogue and > doing what you believe the evil USG will do. > > > > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and > the authorising international law are there precisely to prevent > such a thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone > operation, it breaks no law, neither domestic nor international. > To forcibly break into an international body's premises which is > protected by host country agreement and based on international > treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary > defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt > do :). It can be subject to further international processes like > those from the UN and the international court of justice. BTW, the > fact that the US is one of the countries with the uneasiest of > relationships with the international court of justice may be a > good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting > outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake > US would do as well. > > regards, parminder > > > > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Jun 28 05:16:49 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:16:49 +0200 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> <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: Alejandro, I see no reason why to turn to ad personas. Carlos asks what is the best way to proceed to the people who can politically proceed. The problem is that for too long these people have not (and still not) considered the way they should technically proceed. Discussing the merits of the question or of its origin, or arguing among non decision makers, does not help addressing the problem. There is a problem with the Internet Governence (with an "e", like in Governments) as managed by ICANN and we all are part of the governance (with a "a" like in atlarge). This is a fact. Period. This as nothing primarily to do with the people involved and with their US sponsors. It has to do with the growing inharmony of the 1998 arrangement vs. the bit-power of the Internet technology as it is (can) now be used. There are Police concerns. There are established responses with a given status of the art and common current use. The current technical evolution cannot be contained anymore by the political and police establishment. And in spite of people like Carlos and me and many other no prospective thinking has been carried by those in place, so the natural extension of the things suddenly appears as disruptive. Again there are four kinds of responses : maintain status-quo, adapt, take-over by someone in front of chaos, new order. ICANN tries to maintain in protecting its position, China tries to consensually adapt, Google and some Govs are ready for total or local take-over, we only are a few working a new natural order for a good reason: we had no feasible, consensual and credible architectural scenario until end of 2010. Vint Cerf wanted ICANN to wok on that scenario through IDNA2008 application on the users' side, once we eventually were able to consensually adopt the Internet end to end part of the scenario. I was not favorable because ICANN @larges are not representative enough of lead users and has no direct relation with non-Internet bodies the solutions are to co-support. Experience proved me right and all ICANN was interested to do was to discuss variants (a core but small part of the issue). Today, every of us is to take a decision. There are intelligent users, confronted to the digital convergence, who have more weight and hysteresis than others: Govs, with the USG being a leader and a big one; there are operators; there are rogue investors and mafias who are a true question mark (the negotiation strategy of the FBI will be different if the de facto leader of the Internet+ is the USG, UN, people, a drug cartel, ICANN, Google, ITU). Leadership comes from the Constitution which is the running code. Whoever wants to be a Digital Leader or obtain a sustained privilege in the digital area MUST first understand and influence the existing code and comprehend the way it can and may be used, how and by who (frankly I doubt there are already more than a score of them at the IETF). People like Carlos ask pertinent questions and tease those who should think and foresee. People like me are not much understood when we explore and work on the next steps to come. But never the less we are right and our questions/answers (if to be pertinent) concern the transition of an establishment that wants (this is the definition of an establishment) to maintain the statu quo or at worst locally adapt. I note that the first one to clearly identify the present bias we are to address was the IAB (RFC 3869) and the one who best governs under the present circumstances is Vint Cerf. Then it is up to each of us, in our personal capacity, to help the transition from a telephone, then a host, then a network centric solution to the people centric solution set we consensually demanded at the WSIS. jfc 2012/6/28, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:31:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:31:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 Public Forum Meeting [In Progress] Message-ID: Dear All, Remote Participation is available via https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/prg44-congress-ii?launcher=false -- 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 vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 28 08:43:38 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:43:38 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] ICANN membership and GAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1340887418.39912.YahooMailClassic@web29009.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Greetings all . I just need some help in line with getting ICANN membership and membership to the GAC . Thanks . “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 --- On Thu, 28/6/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 Public Forum Meeting [In Progress] To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thursday, 28 June, 2012, 13:31 Dear All, Remote Participation is available via  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/prg44-congress-ii?launcher=false   -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaTSkype:Salanieta.TamanikaiwaimaroCell: +679 998 2851  -----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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:44:50 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:44:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> References: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: hi, On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, parminder wrote: > Ian, > > Thanks for your comments. > > > 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. Does it? > 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. I thought John explained it rather well. 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. > > So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined > above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such public > policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them. Many of these > issues are just too important for us to allow institutional vacuums to exist > around them, and they will be increasingly more so. There is a 3rd option (at least) that I can think of. That there is no "larger public policy issue that needs to be addressed" here. WHOIS policies are made by each RIR community. If LEAs have an issue with WHOIS, they ought to take it up in the appropriate forum, which is not ICANN itself but associated ICANN "processes". > > This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed. > > You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain how > ICANN would systematically address the various public policy issues, and not > duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often typically does > (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 > issue). First, I think it is useful to understand what, if any, public policy needs to be addressed (pun intended) that is not currently covered by policy. I am not seeing one. > > ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role with > regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present. > Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and functioning > match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is developed in terms > of a narrower technical policy role, and you will accept that the > requirements of the two kind of roles can be different).cy for As John described, IF a global policy needs ratification, that is done by the ICANN BoD. There is no global policy under consideration here, so the ICANN Board (perhaps understandably) had no reaction, as they have no role to play. > > The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express > whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, no expanded role needed. Policies are made at Regional level in this case. NCUC folk are involved in those regional policy deliberations. -- 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 Thu Jun 28 08:52:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:52:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN membership and GAC In-Reply-To: <1340887418.39912.YahooMailClassic@web29009.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1340887418.39912.YahooMailClassic@web29009.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Solomon, there is no "membership" per se. You are welcome to become involved in any aspect of ICANN policy making that interests you. GAC "membership" is a different animal, is limited to reps of nation states and UG already has several: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Representatives#GACRepresentatives-U -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM, vincent solomon wrote: > Greetings all . I just need some help in line with getting ICANN > membership and membership to the GAC . > > Thanks . > > > > > “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our > possibilities become limitless” > > NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 > EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk / > vinsoloster at gmail.com > Skype : vinsolo2 > > > > > > > --- On *Thu, 28/6/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>* wrote: > > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: [governance] ICANN 44 Public Forum Meeting [In Progress] > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Thursday, 28 June, 2012, 13:31 > > Dear All, > > Remote Participation is available via > https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/prg44-congress-ii?launcher=false > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -----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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 08:53:28 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:53:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN membership and GAC In-Reply-To: References: <1340887418.39912.YahooMailClassic@web29009.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Vincent, Uganda is already a member of the GAC and its representative attends GAC Meetings. See https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Representatives. Further, the African Union Commission applied for, and received membership to the GAC at Prague. On Jun 28, 2012 2:44 PM, "vincent solomon" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 28 09:22:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:52:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4FEC5A87.2020801@itforchange.net> McTIm The FBI-DEA-IPv6 issue was only one example of possible public policy issues. We saw others with regard to the earlier discussion on delegation of cctlds. Issues of competition policies, FoE, IP, security concerns..... are all public policy issues. Tunis agenda asked for "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources". There are no such principles at present other than what is largely, consciously and directly or unconsciously and indirectly, imported from the US political and governance system. Even greater perhaps is the 'unprincipled' (pun intended) narrow interests based influence of US business and gov. parminder On Thursday 28 June 2012 06:14 PM, McTim wrote: > hi, > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Ian, >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> >> > > > >> 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. >> > Does it? > > >> 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. >> > I thought John explained it rather well. > > 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. >> >> So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined >> above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such public >> policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them. Many of these >> issues are just too important for us to allow institutional vacuums to exist >> around them, and they will be increasingly more so. >> > There is a 3rd option (at least) that I can think of. That there is > no "larger public policy issue that needs to be addressed" here. > WHOIS policies are made by each RIR community. If LEAs have an issue > with WHOIS, they ought to take it up in the appropriate forum, which > is not ICANN itself but associated ICANN "processes". > > > >> This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed. >> >> You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain how >> ICANN would systematically address the various public policy issues, and not >> duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often typically does >> (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 >> issue). >> > First, I think it is useful to understand what, if any, public policy needs to > be addressed (pun intended) that is not currently covered by policy. > I am not seeing one. > > >> ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role with >> regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present. >> Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and functioning >> match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is developed in terms >> of a narrower technical policy role, and you will accept that the >> requirements of the two kind of roles can be different).cy for >> > As John described, IF a global policy needs ratification, that is done > by the ICANN BoD. > > There is no global policy under consideration here, so the ICANN Board > (perhaps understandably) > had no reaction, as they have no role to play. > > > >> The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express >> whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, >> > no expanded role needed. Policies are made at Regional level in this > case. NCUC folk are involved in those regional policy deliberations. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 28 09:31:51 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:31:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEC5A87.2020801@itforchange.net> References: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> <4FEC5A87.2020801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:22 AM, parminder wrote: > McTIm > >  The FBI-DEA-IPv6 issue was only one example of possible public policy > issues. We saw others with regard to the earlier discussion on delegation of > cctlds. Issues of competition policies, FoE, IP, security concerns..... are > all  public policy issues. Tunis agenda asked for "development of > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the > coordination and management of critical Internet resources". There are no > such principles at present There are. BUTOC is my acronym for these principles. other than what is largely, consciously and > directly or unconsciously and indirectly, imported from the US political and > governance system. No, these are from the Internet community, radically different form US political and governance system, in place for nearly 4 decades and working rather well IMHO. Even greater perhaps is the 'unprincipled' (pun intended) > narrow interests based influence of US business and gov. Which rarely come into play in a BUTOC-y world, but YMMV. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Thu Jun 28 13:06:09 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:06:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] WTPF May 2013 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCEFE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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: 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Jun 28 15:20:53 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:20:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] EU Internet Week Message-ID: <1066756245.134671.1340911253650.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j20> For your information   visit http://www.eu-ems.com/summary.asp?event_id=120&page_id=949   No mention of WCIT in this release   Best greetings   Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Jun 28 16:47:05 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:47:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <4FEBFDB1.5000804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, more comments in line. From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:16:09 +0530 To: Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? Ian, Thanks for your comments. Just to summarize or paraphrase areas of agreements which can help us move forward. You agree that ICANN should become an international organisation, cutting its special links with the US, and enter into a host country agreement (for which you say there is a rough consensus on this list). You also agree that this will require some kind of an international law and international charter, which therefore should be worked towards. I understand that AoC is not the kind of thing we are asking for here, which Carlos defined as "an agreement of behavior and procedures between a contractor (Icann) and its client (DOC/NTIA)". We seek a 'really' international law and status for ICANN. IP ­ not quite ­ I am not sure any new international law is needed. A charter, yes, but derived from within ICANN and accepted on a multistakeholder basis. Perhaps we can park these two elements has having a good degree of agreement among the proposals for dealing with the oversight issue that we have seen lately in this group. 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. So, either we have a (1) separate mechanism for 'oversight' as defined above, or (2) ICANN takes up the role of directly confronting such public policy issues, and correspondingly being accountable for them. Many of these issues are just too important for us to allow institutional vacuums to exist around them, and they will be increasingly more so. This then is the key 'oversight' question left to be discussed. IP ­ what you are getting at here became clearer to me in your response to McTim in which you stated ³Issues of competition policies, FoE, IP, security concerns..... are all public policy issues² . Now I agree they are of course, but I wouldn¹t for one second think they should be ICANN¹s business and these are vastly different in scope to the rather more narrow root zone authorisation scope which was where my comments began. I think ICANN should deal with this as previously suggested, and that no external oversight of the sort you are suggesting is necessary for that role. On the more general issue of how we deal with IP, FoE, security etc ­ that¹s an entirely different discussion and my personal belief is that ICANN is not appropriately structured to deal with issues other than those specifically related to DNS administration. You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain how ICANN would systematically address the various public policy issues, and not duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often typically does (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 issue). ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role with regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at present. Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and functioning match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is developed in terms of a narrower technical policy role, and you will accept that the requirements of the two kind of roles can be different). The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also express whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, whereby it would, itself, fully get into public policy considerations in making its decisions. This, as per my understanding, is contrary to NCUC's stand till now. There are some key NCUC members on this list who can clarify. parminder On Thursday 28 June 2012 02:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous > Internet" ? Hi Parminder, comments inline > > > > > From: parminder > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: , David Conrad > Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Dear Ian > > I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh over it. > > So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes an > international organisation, through an express agreement among all actors, > which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a host country agreement > which gives it various immunities. Right? > > IP ­ yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad support as a step > for ICANN across this list > > > Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and self-oversee, without > any separate oversight body. Which means that the ICANN board is the final > authority for everything. > > IP ­ Yes, subject to a body of international law and its charter. The Board > is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) and as such provides a good > level of accountability. If there were to be an oversight, I think it should > be something like a High Court or Federal Court that determines the lawfulness > of ICANN actions when and if required ­ certainly not another elected body or > governmental body. > > Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse of power by > the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic parametres and general > law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? Do you think that such institutional > separation of roles and power can be done within ICANN? If so, how do you > suggest to go about it? > > IP ­ Yes, see above > > (The international oversight body that I suggested can be considered a part of > ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is whether to have such a body as > different from the board as the executive body, for basic law/policy > compliance related accountability, or not. And if so, how to populate it, and > how to structure its relationship with other parts of ICANN, especially its > board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself does not abuse its power.) > > IP ­ see above. > > Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it narrowly defined as > technical policy development, or is it indeed mandated to take up wider > 'public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of > critical Internet resources' (to quote Tunis agenda). If not so mandated, is > it now your proposal that it now takes up such a role. That is an important > issue to clarify. > > IP. A difficult one, and the ³thick vs thin² ICANN debates have run for a > long time. I don¹t have an immediate answer, but I don¹t see it as > advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a little bit of the > picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at least worth considering whether > the appropriate way to fill them is to expand the ICANN brief. But there will > always be other bodies with specific area of interest (WIPO etc) and I don¹t > think that¹s a bad thing > > I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society > constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only technical, > financial and operational criteria in arriving at its decisions, and not go > into public policy considerations? Are you now opposed to any such assertion? > What is the current stand of NCUC in this regard? > > IP ­ although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC ­ like others I > was asked to join to support the work of the constituency ­ I removed myself > from the mailing list several years ago because I was disinterested in much of > the administrivia that seems to dominate ICANN constituency considerations. So > I cant help here. My non-involvement does not suggest that what ICANN does is > unimportant ­ I think it is, but I also think that what bank tellers do in > their organisations is important too. But in both cases I think their work and > daily procedures is of little interest to me (until such time as something > goes wrong of course). In any case, clearly ICANN raises public policy issues > and these should be discussed. > > IP -As a last remark on this ­ my suggestion that ICANN be responsible for > these issues is not really an endorsement of the way it currently is. I find > it very bloated and quite eccentric. However, it does involve all stakeholders > and genuinely tries to represent their interests. > > > > > > > On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous >> Internet" ? Parminder suggests a structure to take over the unilateral USG >> role in root zone management (among other things). >> >> I have a different proposal altogether ­ just strike it. The oversight >> function is completely unnecessary, and there enough checks and balances in >> current procedures to not need such a role. >> >> Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best interests of the >> internet not to have the perception of unilateral control of any functions. >> >> If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly worded agreement >> with GAC. >> >> If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will come up with are >> likely to be far worse. >> >> Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those organisations and >> individuals who are in a position to take a lead on such matters but instead >> do nothing. A pro-active stance is needed! >> >> This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The current >> appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is ICANN. Improvement of >> ICANN is another matter, but we do not need another body- or another function >> or an anachronistic agreement or set of agreements - to get in the way of >> sensible internet governance. >> >> The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not only unneccessary >> but unhealthy. For the health of the Internet, we should get rid of them. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> >> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 >> To: , David Conrad >> Subject: Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a >> "Autonomous Internet" ? >> >> >> On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But even if we were to agree to what you argue, why would the same >>>>>> safe-guards not operate in case of a international oversight mechanism? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They probably would, but hard to say for certain without a concrete >>>>> example of said "international oversight mechanism". Can you point me at >>>>> one? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model and I you want I can >>>> re state it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally peer-reviewed) proposal or, >>> more preferably, an operational example or prototype, not an outline of >>> lofty goals or possible models. Does such exist? >>> >>> >>> >> >> In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or the 'way >> forward' normally is that we first try to agree on larger ideas and >> principles, and then progressively move towards the details. Those >> approaching this debate from the technical side must respect this general >> method as they want their method of deciding on technical issues respected. >> The main broad points of the model that I had proposed are >> >> (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, procedures and limits >> of an international CIR oversight body, as it provides it with the required >> authority >> >> (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under the same >> statute as above, and it enters into a host country agreement with the >> hosting country, which could be the US >> >> (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the current >> distributed CIR and tech standards development model (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) >> >> (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the mentioned >> treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some loose coupling with it, >> in a manner that it is not subject to typical UN rules. It would ab initio >> evolve its own rules, procedures etc. >> >> (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable regional >> representation. Within each region the country from which members would come >> will get rotated. ( Here, we will need some degree of innovation to ensure >> that although the member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the >> government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader national >> process. Some linkages with highest level national technical institutions can >> also be explored. More ideas are welcome here.) >> >> (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly constrained by >> the relevant international law, exercised through clearly detailed >> procedures, and based on a sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. >> >> (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial process (can look at >> a possible role for the International court of justice) >> >> >> >>> >>> I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the "international oversight >>> mechanism" should do. >>> >>> >> >> More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. >> >> >>> >>> You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample the contents of the >>> root zone. Presumably, the "international oversight mechanism" will be >>> overseeing the operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. >>> >>> >> >> yes >> >> >>> >>> Since those operations must be based in some country, it isn't clear to me >>> how the "international oversight mechanism" would be able to stop that >>> country's government from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil >>> USG will do. >>> >>> >>> >> >> No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement and the >> authorising international law are there precisely to prevent such a thing. >> Today, if the US 'interferes' with root zone operation, it breaks no law, >> neither domestic nor international. To forcibly break into an international >> body's premises which is protected by host country agreement and based on >> international treaty, and interfering in its work, will be an extraordinary >> defiance of international law, the kind which even the US doesnt do :). It >> can be subject to further international processes like those from the UN and >> the international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is one of the >> countries with the uneasiest of relationships with the international court of >> justice may be a good reason to seek ICANN's and the oversight body's >> hosting outside the US. However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US >> would do as well. >> >> regards, parminder >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Thu Jun 28 16:59:49 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:59:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <20120619103157.GA31178@nic.fr> <873F086A-410B-4FC3-9EC7-AB60E482CC36@virtualized.org> <4FE16CCD.2060603@itforchange.net> <4FE3F3CA.7050109@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B0EEFA4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4FE54A34.5050607@itforchange.net> <421037BA-DCF2-4574-AB88-89367614B358@virtualized.org> <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> <4FEB765F.7010206@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <4FECC5C5.6010604@panamo.eu> Hi all, Le 28/06/12 00:22, JFC Morfin a écrit : > Dominique, > do you know if they were/are jailed in Guantanamo? Dear Jefsey, No, in the so called "small Guantanamo", Federal Correctional Complex, Terre haute, one of the two places of the "Communication management Unit": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_Management_Unit. I do think we cannot discuss usefully this topic before the next US presidential elections. Perhaps we would better spend out time talking about WCIT2012 in details. @+, Dominique > > Never mind what these people actually are/did > > 1) they should be protected by diplomatic immunity (since they never > hiden who they were and were they operated) until proved to be actual > terrorists by an international court (what did not prevent the US to > put to jail or to expulse them). > > 2) they assume a national public service: that service should have > been continued to the benefit of Iraquis people and to all the people > accessing their hosts. Every possibility should have been investigated > to that end, including a temporary management by ICANN wich is > accountable of the stability of the _entire_ DNS CLASS "IN" > (ICANN/NTIA). > > jfc > > 2012/6/27, Dominique Lacroix
: >> David, >> >> Beyond some wandering, I think we agree. The personal destiny of the .iq >> registry managers doesn't seem related to an IANA abuse, neither from >> USG, nor from ICANN. Ok on that precise point. BTW, it was the sense of >> my first post on the topic. >> But - I wonder why - I cannot help but to imagine may be sort of... >> coincidental relations between the country designated by the .iq ccTLD, >> the Palestinian origin of the registry managers and the cruelty of their >> trials and sentences. >> And the global impression is not at the advantage of the US, I'm sad to >> tell you such a thing. At the contrary, it seems to be a stone on the >> increasing militarization of the Internet. >> The America the world liked, the one of the Founding fathers, sister of >> the European Enlightenments, is another one. >> >> @+, best, Dominique >> >> >> Le 26/06/12 22:29, David Conrad a écrit : >>> Dominique, >>> >>> On Jun 26, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >>>> Sorry for the ellipsis, David. The .IQ/Elashi brothers case is simply >>>> showing, imho, that as we can observe diverse laws in diverse countries. >>> No argument. My confusion here stems from the fact that we were talking >>> about the USG "oversight" role with respect to root zone management. My >>> understanding of the .IQ case (without commenting on whether there was a >>> miscarriage of justice regarding the Elashi brothers) was that the USG >>> "oversight" role was uninvoked because the request got stuck in the IANA >>> processes, specifically with difficulties trying to establish the wishes >>> of the Internet community, prior to the USG "oversight" role being called >>> upon. >>> >>>> In our scope, the case shows that DNS architecture is also a very >>>> political game. >>> While I agree that the DNS has become very political, I'm unsure how the >>> .IQ case shows this. The fact that the Elashi brothers were the >>> administrative contacts for .IQ seems (as far as I can tell) coincidental >>> to the difficulties they ran into. I figure the .HT case is far more >>> interesting in the context of Internet Governance as it suggest the need >>> for oversight. However, as mentioned, both of these were before my time at >>> IANA so I may not have a full understanding. >>> >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 29 00:37:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:07:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FED310F.6040409@itforchange.net> On Friday 29 June 2012 02:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, more comments in line. > > *IP -- what you are getting at here became clearer to me in your > response to McTim in which you stated "**Issues of competition > policies, FoE, IP, security concerns..... are all public policy > issues" . Now I agree they are of course, but I wouldn't for one > second think they should be ICANN's business and these are vastly > different in scope to the rather more narrow root zone authorisation > scope which was where my comments began. I think ICANN should deal > with this as previously suggested, and that no external oversight of > the sort you are suggesting is necessary for that role. On the more > general issue of how we deal with IP, FoE, security etc -- that's an > entirely different discussion and my personal belief is that ICANN is > not appropriately structured to deal with issues other than those > specifically related to DNS administration. > * Ian, when I list the above public policy issues *in terms of CIR oversight role*, I mean only the manner in which they are, as you put it,'*specifically related to DNS administration'* . To mediate these issues in relation to DNS administration, or the larger CIR management, is the definition of CIR 'oversight' role. When as you say ICANN should not itself do it, who should do it, and how the outcomes are enabled to inform ICANN's CIR related technical operations? parminder > ** > You dont want a separate oversight mechanism, and so you must explain > how ICANN would systematically address the various public policy > issues, and not duck them, or try to find ways around them as it often > typically does (including in the case of Carlos's recent poser to the > ICANN on the FBI-IPv6 issue). > > ICANN has to clearly accept and define its larger public policy role > with regard to CIR management, something which doesnt exist at > present. Correspondingly, it also has to show how its structures and > functioning match this new larger role. (At present, its structure is > developed in terms of a narrower technical policy role, and you will > accept that the requirements of the two kind of roles can be different). > > The civil society involved with ICANN, especially NCUC, may also > express whether they agree with this new expanded role of ICANN, > whereby it would, itself, fully get into public policy considerations > in making its decisions. This, as per my understanding, is contrary to > NCUC's stand till now. There are some key NCUC members on this list > who can clarify. > > parminder > > On Thursday 28 June 2012 02:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? Hi Parminder, comments inline > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Date: *Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:14:54 +0530 > *To: *Ian Peter > *Cc: *, David Conrad > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for > a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > Dear Ian > > I am willing to discuss your proposal, if we can put some flesh > over it. > > So the baseline is; ICANN, both in its DNS and IANA roles, becomes > an international organisation, through an express agreement among > all actors, which includes US and other govs, and it gets into a > host country agreement which gives it various immunities. Right? > > *IP -- yes, and the host country agreement seems to have broad > support as a step for ICANN across this list > > * > Beyond that you seem to want ICANN to self-regulate and > self-oversee, without any separate oversight body. Which means > that the ICANN board is the final authority for everything. > > *IP -- Yes, subject to a body of international law and its > charter. The Board is elected (mostly, perhaps it should be fully) > and as such provides a good level of accountability. If there were > to be an oversight, I think it should be something like a High > Court or Federal Court that determines the lawfulness of ICANN > actions when and if required -- certainly not another elected body > or governmental body. > > *Dont you think that having a body that can check possible abuse > of power by the ICANN board, and hold it accountable to some basic > parametres and general law/policies, would be useful/ necessary? > Do you think that such institutional separation of roles and power > can be done within ICANN? If so, how do you suggest to go about it? > > *IP -- Yes, see above > > *(The international oversight body that I suggested can be > considered a part of ICANN, that isnt a big issue. The issue is > whether to have such a body as different from the board as the > executive body, for basic law/policy compliance related > accountability, or not. And if so, how to populate it, and how to > structure its relationship with other parts of ICANN, especially > its board. And of course, how to ensure that it itself does not > abuse its power.) > > *IP -- see above. > > *Another issue is, how does ICANN define its mandate. Is it > narrowly defined as technical policy development, or is it indeed > mandated to take up wider 'public policy issues associated with > the coordination and management of critical Internet resources' > (to quote Tunis agenda). If not so mandated, is it now your > proposal that it now takes up such a role. That is an important > issue to clarify. > > *IP. A difficult one, and the "thick vs thin" ICANN debates have > run for a long time. I don't have an immediate answer, but I don't > see it as advantageous to have numerous bodies each dealing with a > little bit of the picture. Where there are gaps I think it is at > least worth considering whether the appropriate way to fill them > is to expand the ICANN brief. But there will always be other > bodies with specific area of interest (WIPO etc) and I don't think > that's a bad thing > > *I have read numerous statements by NCUC (one of the civil society > constituencies within the ICANN) that ICANN should employ only > technical, financial and operational criteria in arriving at its > decisions, and not go into public policy considerations? Are you > now opposed to any such assertion? What is the current stand of > NCUC in this regard? > > *IP -- although I think I am still nominally a member of NCUC -- > like others I was asked to join to support the work of the > constituency -- I removed myself from the mailing list several > years ago because I was disinterested in much of the administrivia > that seems to dominate ICANN constituency considerations. So I > cant help here. My non-involvement does not suggest that what > ICANN does is unimportant -- I think it is, but I also think that > what bank tellers do in their organisations is important too. But > in both cases I think their work and daily procedures is of little > interest to me (until such time as something goes wrong of > course). In any case, clearly ICANN raises public policy issues > and these should be discussed. > > IP -As a last remark on this -- my suggestion that ICANN be > responsible for these issues is not really an endorsement of the > way it currently is. I find it very bloated and quite eccentric. > However, it does involve all stakeholders and genuinely tries to > represent their interests. > > > * > > > > On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:31 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a > "Autonomous Internet" ? Parminder suggests a structure to > take over the unilateral USG role in root zone management > (among other things). > > I have a different proposal altogether -- just strike it. The > oversight function is completely unnecessary, and there enough > checks and balances in current procedures to not need such a role. > > Just get rid of it. Make a decision that it is in the best > interests of the internet not to have the perception of > unilateral control of any functions. > > If the USG insists on maintaining a role, sign a similarly > worded agreement with GAC. > > If nothing is done, the default solutions governments will > come up with are likely to be far worse. > > Which is why we should act. I get frustrated by those > organisations and individuals who are in a position to take a > lead on such matters but instead do nothing. A pro-active > stance is needed! > > This is just part of the DNS, as Louis Pouzin points out. The > current appropriate forum for governance in DNS matters is > ICANN. Improvement of ICANN is another matter, but we do not > need another body- or another function or an anachronistic > agreement or set of agreements - to get in the way of sensible > internet governance. > > The Internet has grown up, some old procedures are now not > only unneccessary but unhealthy. For the health of the > Internet, we should get rid of them. > > Ian Peter > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:25:12 +0530 > *To: *, David Conrad > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [liberationtech] Chinese preparing > for a "Autonomous Internet" ? > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 02:16 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > > Parminder, > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:36 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > But even if we were to agree to what you > argue, why would the same safe-guards not > operate in case of a international oversight > mechanism? > > > > > > They probably would, but hard to say for certain > without a concrete example of said "international > oversight mechanism". Can you point me at one? > > > > > > I have proposed some outlines of such a possible model > and I you want I can re state it. > > > > > > > I was actually looking for a concrete (ideally > peer-reviewed) proposal or, more preferably, an > operational example or prototype, not an outline of lofty > goals or possible models. Does such exist? > > > > > In socio-political arena, the method of seeking 'solutions' or > the 'way forward' normally is that we first try to agree on > larger ideas and principles, and then progressively move > towards the details. Those approaching this debate from the > technical side must respect this general method as they want > their method of deciding on technical issues respected. The > main broad points of the model that I had proposed are > > (1) An international treaty clearly lays out the scope, > procedures and limits of an international CIR oversight body, > as it provides it with the required authority > > (2) ICANN itself becomes an international technical body under > the same statute as above, and it enters into a host country > agreement with the hosting country, which could be the US > > (3) The same treaty sanctifies the broad principles of the > current distributed CIR and tech standards development model > (ICANN, RIRs, IETF etc) > > (4) The oversight body is a stand-alone body set up under the > mentioned treaty - outside the UN system but perhaps with some > loose coupling with it, in a manner that it is not subject to > typical UN rules. It would ab initio evolve its own rules, > procedures etc. > > (5) The oversight body can have 15-20 members, with equitable > regional representation. Within each region the country from > which members would come will get rotated. ( Here, we will > need some degree of innovation to ensure that although the > member will have some clear relationship/ backing of the > government, her selection/ affirmation would require a broader > national process. Some linkages with highest level national > technical institutions can also be explored. More ideas are > welcome here.) > > (6) The role of the oversight body will be minimal, clearly > constrained by the relevant international law, exercised > through clearly detailed procedures, and based on a > sufficiently high majority, if not consensus. > > (7) Its decision will be subject to a separate judicial > process (can look at a possible role for the International > court of justice) > > > > > I'll admit I'm still not clear what you believe the > "international oversight mechanism" should do. > > > > More or less what the US gov does in relation to CIR management. > > > > You've been talking about how the evil USG will trample > the contents of the root zone. Presumably, the > "international oversight mechanism" will be overseeing the > operations of root zone modification as the USG does today. > > > > yes > > > > Since those operations must be based in some country, it > isn't clear to me how the "international oversight > mechanism" would be able to stop that country's government > from going rogue and doing what you believe the evil USG > will do. > > > > > No, it doesnt happen that way at all. Host country agreement > and the authorising international law are there precisely to > prevent such a thing. Today, if the US 'interferes' with root > zone operation, it breaks no law, neither domestic nor > international. To forcibly break into an international body's > premises which is protected by host country agreement and > based on international treaty, and interfering in its work, > will be an extraordinary defiance of international law, the > kind which even the US doesnt do :). It can be subject to > further international processes like those from the UN and the > international court of justice. BTW, the fact that the US is > one of the countries with the uneasiest of relationships with > the international court of justice may be a good reason to > seek ICANN's and the oversight body's hosting outside the US. > However, perhaps for, historical continuity's sake US would do > as well. > > regards, parminder > > > > > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 29 11:54:51 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:54:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> 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 pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Jun 29 12:08:29 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:08:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Websites blocked in UAE with Netsweeper Message-ID: <4FEDD2FD.80607@cis-india.org> Dear all, @Isac_anon and @Juzzy0 who work as Anonymous discovered this while snooping around Netsweeper's products: Main list of sites blocked in the UAE: http://goo.gl/wtxoB Secondary list, with pattern blocking: http://goo.gl/WaAb2 Summary (by Anonymous): * There were ALOTT of pornographic, sexual related (even Sex ED!!) * Dating sites and freaking MATRIMONIAL sites !! blocked!! * Any article, website, Facebook group etc. that is critical of the Government... * Sites that help bypass censorship I.E Proxies, VPN providers etc. * Support sites of religion's other than Islam ... eg: biblestudylessons.com etc. * The most shocking lots and lots of VOIP sites the reason is explained below Link to Anon statement: http://goo.gl/jmxd3 Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society @pranesh_prakash · PGP ID 0x1D5C5F07 · http://cis-india.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Jun 29 16:43:29 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:43:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] List of nominees for the Appeals Team - please confirm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4FEE1371.5080108@communisphere.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Jun 29 17:14:20 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 07:14:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: Hi John, You are actually responding to Parminder¹s 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 29 18:47:34 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:47:34 -0400 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: Actually you forgot about me, but I suspect that I didn't go through the proper process when I volunteered (23rd June) Deirdre On 29 June 2012 16:43, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > 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 > > -- “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 jcurran at arin.net Sat Jun 30 02:20:48 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:20:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Oversight, was [liberationtech] Chinese preparing for a "Autonomous Internet" ? In-Reply-To: References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net>, Message-ID: <1466E81A-16E5-4B9A-9D58-4018ED91E581@corp.arin.net> 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 ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Sat Jun 30 15:40:54 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:40:54 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Assistance to an authoritarian regime to monitor Internet trafic In-Reply-To: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> References: <7CE68297-63F6-47EB-AB3D-9B2EA7B53A07@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <1341085254.85379.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> When France Telecom Helps To Monitor Citizens Of An Authoritarian Regime inShare6 The regime of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia has undertaken to control the online activity of citizens. It is now fitted with the general surveillance technology called Deep Packet Inspection, thanks to the help of France Telecom, of which the French state is the main shareholder. In a country where dissidents are imprisonned over accusations of terrorism, this news could undermine current efforts of freedom of expression activists. "Internet Cafe in Addis Ababa" by Yigal Chamish - Flickr / Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0) The online anonymity project Tor reported on its Blog  on May 31 that the Ethiopian Government, via the Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation, has begun using the Deep Packet Inspection technology, which allows the general surveillance of the internet trafic in a country. Such monitoring has prevented Tor from working in the country, although the website is still accessible. This information sparked concern among freedom of expression activists, cyber-dissidents, journalists,  who use the Internet to disseminate reports on Human rights abuses in the regime of Meles Zenawi, where dissent activities can lead to jail, under accusation of terrorism.  The shadow of a Western company? According to French daily newspaper La Croix  (fr), France Telecom has helped the Government implement the Deep Packet Inspection technology. Indeed, the French company created in 2010 Ethio Telecom, the monopolistic telecommunication company of the Eastern African country. The system is likely to monitor 2,5 million mobile internet user and 200,000 internet subscribers. Jean-Michel Latute, CEO of the Ethiopian telecommunication company explained to la Croix's Journalist: « We will use part of this service to control our bandwidth. It will help us prevent abuse of clients, downloading full movies, for example. This is a very useful tool. » A justification that fails to convince Ethiopian journalist and blogger Endalkachew HaileMichael, joined by Internet Sans Frontières: « This is one of those ridiculous reasons that can be given by an outdated and France Telecom backed Ethiopian Telecom company. The internet connection has been a colossal source of frustration for many internet users in Ethiopia. The majority of internet users rely on cybercafés to access the web through slow and unreliable connections. Many independent studies have confirmed that accessing an online e-mail account and opening one message took six minutes in a typical Addis Ababa cybercafé with a broadband connection. Hence to give such a reason to apply DPI in such Ethiopian circumstance is a travesty. Besides the restrictions on accessing political and nonaligned websites, accessing individual’s blogs activists’ websites has been incredibly strict. To my disappointment, I sometimes cannot even access my own websites. For instance Abe Tokichaw an exiled Amharic satirist was forced to open new blogs for more than 15 times by changing domain names of his blogs. He looks like playing hide and seek with Ethio-Telecom. Finding ways to circumvent this unfortunate circumstance has been difficult, though still possible to say the least, and I think the main reason why Ethio-Telecom forced to apply DPI is to muffle even more every possible openings. » Although arrestations haven' been made yet following the implementation of the DPI, he believes it is just a question of time: « One thing is sure laws are being readied to make arrests. Recently they have ratified a law which the legislators argued that it will help in fighting threats which would use internet telephony to disrupt national security. I would definitely guess that such kind of cases will be reported sooner rather than later. » Deep Packet Inspection was used under Gaddafi's Lybia, to monitor activists who were organising the uprising. A judicial probe  was recently opened in France against Amesys, the French company which provided the tool to the then Lybian dictator, over complicity in torture. Lundi 11 Juin 2012 Julie Owono Head of Africa Desk @ Internet Sans Frontières En savoir plus sur cet auteur   ___________________________________ 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  ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t